Commons Sitting of 28 May 1891

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL—(by Order.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: This Bill relates both to England and Ireland, but I wish to take exception to that part which applies to the town of Killarney. It is proposed, with the consent of the Board of Trade, to obtain a Provisional Order for lighting that district by electricity. Although Killarney has a' great reputation for its lakes, its mountains, and its historical ruins, it is but a very small and poor place in itself. It is proposed by this Bill to give to a Mr. Leahy a monopoly of electric lighting, in connection with Killarney, for 28 years. Mr. Leahy is not, I believe, a resident in Killarney, but in the neighbourhood of the town there is a mill which is worked by water power. It formerly belonged to a firm named Leahy, of which this gentleman was not a member, although he was a family connection. Mr. Leahy has, however, obtained a lease of this water power from year to year, and in consequence of possessing it he has proposed to supply Killarney with electric lighting. In the beginning of last year there was a statutory meeting of the Town Commissioners of Killarney to consider a letter from Mr. Leahy, asking for their assent to a Provisional Order for lighting the town. A resolution, giving assent, was carried by five to three, but there was a strong feeling manifested in
  1172
  the town that if electric lighting was to be undertaken it should be in the hands of the Town Commissioners themselves, for the benefit of the inhabitants. Some time afterwards the Board of Trade wrote to the Town Commissioners informing them that an application for a Provisional Order had been made, and asking for their opinion in regard to it; whereupon the Commissioners wrote to object to any concession to Mr. Leahy, and desired that they themselves should become the promoters of a scheme. This occurred in February or March, 1890, and in April a resolution was passed convening a special meeting for the adoption of a statutory resolution, as required by the Electric Lighting Act, and for the rescinding of the resolution passed upon the 17th February in favour of Mr. Leahy's application. The meeting was held, and was adjourned until the 21st of July, when a unanimous resolution was passed rescinding the resolution of February, and a further resolution come to empowering the Commissioners to make an application to the Board of Trade for a Provisional Order on their own behalf. On the 7th of August the solicitor to the Commissioners was instructed to take the necessary steps for obtaining a Provisional Order, and authority was given to expend the local money for that purpose. On the 12th of December a special meeting was called to rescind, if possible, the last resolution, but it failed, and the decision previously arrived at was endorsed. A memorial was accordingly signed and sealed on behalf of the Commissioners, but an extraordinary thing then occurred. On the 29th of January last a special meeting was called, on the requisition of a small number of the Commissioners, for the purpose of dealing with a letter which the solicitor of Mr. Leahy had addressed to the solicitor of the Town Commissioners in reference to electric lighting. That meeting was irregularly called; several members of the Commissioners, including the Chairman, received no notification of it. The Chairman was in Killarney at the time, but as he knew nothing about the meeting, he did not attend it. At the meeting, the Town Commissioners were given to understand that if they proceeded with their applica-

  1173
  tion they would do so at their own cost and peril; and they were threatened with proceedings, not in connection with electric lighting, but in regard to a rate it was proposed to levy to cover certain liabilities which had been incurred with respect to interest and principal on account of some water works scheme. The Commissioners being badly advised, had, on a previous occasion, been mulcted in costs for a scheme of the same kind, and Mr. Leahy threatened them with similar proceedings if they did not withdraw their opposition to his scheme. The result was that a resolution was adopted instructing the town solicitor to withdraw their application for a Provisional Order, and to support the application of Mr. Leahy. On the strength of that resolution Mr. Leahy proceeded with his scheme, but the people of Killarney are opposed to it, and the Town Commissioners are opposed to it. The resolution was improperly passed at a special meeting irregularly convened, and as it has no effect in law, I ask the Board of Trade to refuse to allow Mr. Leahy's scheme to go on. There is very little need in Killarney for electric lighting at all, and under all the circumstances I hope the President of the Board of Trade will consent to eliminate from this Provisional Order that portion of it which relates to the town of Killarney.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I do not think the hon. Gentleman has shown that his opposition to this part of the Bill is well founded. It is a Provisional Order to enable electric lighting to be provided for the town of Killarney. Now the town of Killarney is not an ordinary country town, but it is a place that is much resorted to by visitors, and it contains a number of large hotels, which do not exist in an ordinary country town. The application for a Provisional Order was opposed among others by the Chairman of the Town Commissioners, by Lord Kenmare, by 13 persons resident in Killarney, and by the Killarney Gas Company; but with all due respect, my opinion is that the real opposition to the Order comes, not from the inhabitants of Killarney, but from the Gas Company. The Town Commissioners having further considered the subject,
  1174
  withdrew their opposition, and entered into an agreement with Mr. Leahy that if he would pay the expenses they had incurred, they would consent to the Provisional Order, with certain Amendments, reducing the maximum price to be paid and the period during which the concession is to run. That agreement was ratified at a meeting of the Town Commissioners. The hon. Member says that the meeting was irregularly summoned. This is the first I have heard of any irregularity. No complaint has been made to the Board of Trade that the proceedings were not perfectly regular. The Provisional Order, as amended by the agreement, was sent down to Killarney for consideration, and no objection has been made to it. So far from there being any general objection on the part of the inhabitants of Killarney, the only objectors are the Gas Company, and not a single Petition has been presented against the Provisional Order. I therefore trust that the House will not take the unusual course of refusing to read the Bill a second time. If the matter requires further inquiry, the proper tribunal to investigate it will be a Select Committee; and I shall not have the smallest objection to the reference of the Killarney portion of the Order to a Select Committee, who can inquire into it in the ordinary way.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: An inquiry before a Select Committee would involve a serious expense, and would entail a heavy burden upon the inhabitants. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow this part of the Order to stand over for a few days, in order that the people who are interested in it may be communicated with.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I see no reason for deferring the Bill. After the Second Reading there will be ample opportunity for consideration.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES BILL [LORDS].
  Ordered, That the Petition from the Legislative Council and House of Assembly of Newfoundland in Session convened, presented on Tuesday last, praying that one of their Delegates may

  1175
  be heard at the Bar of the House against the Bill, be read.—(Mr. Staveley Hill.)
  The said Petition was read.
  Ordered, That Sir William Vallance Whiteway, K.C.M.G., one of the Delegates, be heard at the Bar in compliance with the said Petition.

QUESTIONS.

  THE OPIUM TRADE IN BRITISH INDIA.
  MR. MARK J. STEWART: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Memorial presented to the Secretary of State for India by a deputation from the Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade, on the 30th July, 1890, with regard to the retail sale of opium and other drugs in British India, has been forwarded to the Government of India; and whether any reply from the Government of India has yet been received; and, if not, whether he will inquire how soon such reply may be expected?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): Yes, Sir; the Memorial was sent by the Secretary of State to India last August. No reply has been received, but the Secretary of State will remind the Government of India of that fact.

  WOUNDING A POLICE SERGEANT.
  SIR. E. REED: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, with regard to the sentence passed at the Assizes held at Swansea in August last on William Evans, one of the Glamorganshire Constabulary, who was convicted of feloniously wounding Sergeant Martin, and sentenced to 15 years' penal servitude by Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, Memorials signed by a large number of persons of all classes have been presented from Cowbridge, the Vale of Glamorgan, Cardiff, and Pembrokeshire, of which county William Evans is a native, as well as from the Joint Police Committee of the County of Glamorgan, in favour of a mitigation of the sentence; and whether another Memorial to the same effect has been recently presented, which has been signed by 10 of the jurymen who tried him, one of the jurymen who did not sign it having left the country, whilst
  1176
  the other cannot be found; if so, whether, considering this widespread and deep feeling in Glamorganshire and Pembrokeshire regarding the punishment inflicted on William Evans, he will recommend Her Majesty to reduce the sentence?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I have received Memorials relating to the case of William Evans in favour of a mitigation of the sentence passed on him. The prisoner was convicted of a savage and brutal crime, namely, gouging out the eye of a man, against whom he had reason to entertain a grudge. For this offence a sentence of penal servitude was certainly not improper, and it is too soon to consider whether any, and, if so, what, abridgment of the term may hereafter be allowable.

  VALUE OF THE ROUBLE.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether representations have reached the Foreign Office from Consular Officers in Russia, calling attention to the hardship they suffer from the increased value of the rouble, and the increased price of provisions in that country, whereby the incomes of residents have been practically diminished; and whether the Foreign Office can hold out any hopes of being able to remedy the grievances complained of?
  SIR J. GORST (for Sir J. FERGUSSON): Some of the Consular Officers in Russia have complained of the increased value of the rouble. Fluctuations in the rate of exchange affect diplomatic and consular salaries in all parts of the world, and it is impossible to provide against them.

  INLAND REVENUE, EDINBURGH.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the remuneration of the clerks in the Department of the Solicitor of Inland Revenue, Edinburgh, is inferior to that in similar Departments in London and Dublin; whether the Edinburgh clerks have memorialised the Treasury without satisfaction; and whether, if moved for, he will grant a Return of all Memorials, Reports, and Correspondence relating to

  1177
  the reorganisation of the Departments of the Solicitors of Inland Revenue for England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively, passing between the Solicitors and clerks in said Departments, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and the Lords of the Treasury from 1887 to the present date, also of the Report, dated 17th September 1889, of the Treasury Committee on the Departments of the Customs and Inland Revenue Solicitors in London, and Minutes of Evidence taken by the Committee?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The Treasury cannot recognise a claim to increased salary in Scotland which rests solely on the ground that analogous duties are more highly remunerated in England or Ireland. The salaries of the Solicitors' staff in Edinburgh have been compared with those paid in other legal Departments in that city and in the offices of private Solicitors, and the Treasury is satisfied that when judged by this standard the applicants have no good ground of complaint. As regards the future, clerks employed by the Inland Revenue Solicitors in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin will be paid from a lump sum intrusted to the Solicitor for clerk hire, and at such rates as he may consider adequate to their services. I cannot consent to produce the Departmental correspondence relating to the organisation of these Departments.

  TRANSATLANTIC CATTLE TRADE.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Board has considered the Report and the recommendations of the Departmental Committee as to the Transatlantic cattle trade; and whether he proposes this Session to bring in a Bill to enable the Board of Agriculture to carry out, so far as possible, any or all of the recommendations of the Committee?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): I have considered the Report and recommendations of the Departmental Committee upon the Transatlantic cattle trade, and I propose to ask the leave of the House to introduce a Bill to enable the Board of Agriculture to give effect to those recommendations, or such part of them as
  1178
  may appear to be desirable, in the course of a few days.

  THE TOWER WHARF.
  MR. MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has sanctioned the following regulations for the admission of the public to the riverside walk at the Tower of London:—That the public must enter and leave only by the Barrier Gate, Tower Hill; that persons must be properly dressed; that the hours of admission be on Saturdays from 10 a.m. till half an hour before sunset, and on Sundays from 2 p.m. till half an hour before sunset; whether he will facilitate locomotion by allowing the public also to pass in and out of the East Gate, near the New Tower Bridge; whether he will remove the restriction as to dress, which is not prescribed in the regulations for admission to Kensington Gardens; and whether, in consideration of the admission being restricted to about half a day on Sundays, he will admit the public also on Wednesdays, or some other week day?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): I presume that by the "Riverside Walk" the hon. Member alludes to the "Tower Wharf," which may at any time be required for the Public Service, and which, of course, we retain the right of closing when necessary. The regulations in question have been approved by Her Majesty, and I would observe upon them that the rule as to persons being properly and decently dressed is one which is obviously necessary in this and in all similar cases. I am informed that the opening of the east gate would not benefit any resident population. I may say that I do not want to facilitate locomotion as the hon. Member proposes, but to make such use of the open space for the benefit of the resident population in the neighbourhood as is consistent with the requirements of Public Service. Practically the wharf is also open to the public on Mondays, and I see no reason to recommend any further extension.

  GENERAL REGISTER OFFICE, SCOTLAND.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, from March

  1179
  1873 to the 1st April, 1891, the fees for the registration of deeds at the General Register Office discriminated in favour of persons acquiring properties under £500 in value, being a large majority of those registering deeds from the small towns and villages in Scotland; whether, since the 1st April last, a new table of fees has been adopted, under which the charges have been raised on properties under £500 and up to £2,000, while beyond £2,000 a saving is effected; why the charges on small properties have been increased while they have been reduced on large properties; and whether he will recommend that the charge made on properties under £500 be restored as it was prior to the 1st April?
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. MAXWELL,) (for The LORD ADVOCATE): Yes, Sir; a new Table of Fees came into force on the 1st April last, in conformity with the recommendations of a Committee, who made special inquiry into the subject. So far as it has been yet tested the Table is believed to give general satisfaction. The principle on which it is based is to establish a fixed fee for registration, instead of a sliding scale, thus doing away with the necessity of a certificate of value, which, under the old system, necessitated an expense of 6s. to the applicant. The lowest scale of registration fees has now been adopted for all properties alike.

  PATENTS AND DESIGNS.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state how many appeals there were in 1890 against the decision of the Comptroller of Patents and Designs as to the acceptance or refusal of registration of a trade mark, and how many of these were referred direct to the Court instead of being heard by the Board of Trade; and if, in these cases, he will consider the propriety of having the fee charged on lodging an appeal to the Department, returned to the appellant?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: During the year ended 31st December, 1890, there were 43 appeals against the decision of the Comptroller refusing to register a trade mark. Of these, 25 were referred
  1180
  to the Court and 18 heard by the Board of Trade. I am not prepared to direct the return of fees paid under the circumstances mentioned in the last paragraph of my hon. Friend's question. Only £1 is charged, and a considerable amount of work has to be performed in connection with such appeals before they are referred to the Court.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (JUVENILE OFFENDERS) BILL—SCOTLAND.
  MR. SHIRESS WILL: I had intended to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction (Juvenile Offenders) Bill, now pending in this House, he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of any rules or regulations now in force in Scotland for the whipping of juvenile offenders, whether sanctioned by the Lord Advocate as required by "The Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1860," or otherwise; and whether, under the Act of 1862, relating to the whipping of juvenile offenders (25 and 26 Vict. cap. 18), there is any authority for the whipping of such offenders in Scotland between the ages of 14 and 16? In the absence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have been requested to postpone the question for a week.

  ARMY PENSIONS.
  MR. R. SPENCER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a man at the end of 21 years' service, if this period is made up of some years of Army service and some on Reserve, is entitled to a pension of 10d. a day; and whether the pension claimed by William Nolan, of Roade (late of Floore), in Northamptonshire, has been withheld from him; and, if so, for what reason?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Service in the present Reserve does not count towards pension unless the Reservist be recalled to active duty; but service for two years in the Army Reserve created by the Act of 1859 did count as one year towards the 21 years' service required to qualify a private for the maximum pension of 10d. a day. William Nolan would have earned pension under this rule; but from 1857 to 1889 he was employed as a labourer in the Ordnance Store Department, for which service he was awarded

  1181
  a superannuation of £26 8s. 4d. a year, instead of the smaller pension of £15 4s. 2d. which he might have had for his Army service; and, of course, he cannot draw both pensions.

  THE NEW ART GALLERY.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any correspondence between the Treasury and the Science and Art Department exists relating to the proposed grant for a new Art Gallery on land bought for scientific purposes, and on which buildings in use by the students of the Royal College of Science already exists?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that no such correspondence exists.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: May I ask whether the House is to understand that in a matter of the highest importance, affecting the teaching of science in the Royal College of Science at South Kensington, no opportunity is to be given to the scientific officers of the Science and Art Department, who are responsible for that teaching, to express their views?
  MR. GOSCHEN: That was not the question of the hon. Member. His question was whether there was any correspondence on the subject. If the hon. Member will ask for information, I will endeavour to give it. There has been no correspondence; but I may say that the representatives of the Department were present when the ground was examined and the matter was gone into.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: If there has been no correspondence, in what way have the views of these scientific gentlemen been taken?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Minister who is responsible for the Department communicated with these gentlemen.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Who is the Minister responsible for the Department?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I thought it was well known that the Lord President of the Council is at the head of the Science and Art Department.
  DR. FARQUHARSON[amid cries of "Order!"]: May I ask if there is any
  1182
  representative of the Lord President in the House who can give any information on the subject?
  MR. GOSCHEN: If the hon. Gentleman asks for information, I will give it. He asked if there was any correspondence, and I said there was not. But I may tell him that representatives of the Department were present when the ground was examined and the matter gone into.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I will put a further question on a later day.

  BRITISH AND FOREIGN VESSELS—CLASSIFICATION.
  MR. FURNESS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that English ships, classed at Lloyd's, are being sold to foreign owners, and that under such new ownership they are loading in United Kingdom ports and elsewhere deeper than they were allowed when owned by British subjects, and that notwithstanding their classification in Lloyd's Register of British and Foreign Shipping still continues; seeing the Board of Trade have constituted Lloyd's Committee the principal authority in this country to assign freeboards on their behalf, will he use his influence with the Committee with a view to inducing them to refuse their classification to all ships which do not agree to have a freeboard assigned; and will he instruct the Board of Trade detaining officers at ports in the United Kingdom to treat British and foreign vessels perfectly alike as to overloading, in accordance with the provisions of "The Merchant Shipping Act, 1876?"
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am not aware to what extent English ships classed at Lloyd's are being sold to foreign owners, but the Board of Trade are quite alive to the importance of preventing evasion of the law by means of such transfers, and so far back as 1888 I issued instructions to the detaining officers as follows:—
  "When a British ship is transferred to a foreign flag and loads more deeply in a port in the United Kingdom while under the foreign flag than she had previously been allowed when under the British Flag, it will he the duty of the principal officer to detain her on receiving a Report from the surveyor, and it will be the duty of the surveyor to report all such cases as come under his notice."

  1183
  The Board of Trade are only authorised to interfere with the loading of foreign ships in ports of the United Kingdom when such ships are unsafe by reason of overloading or improper loading. The Board of Trade are directed by the "Merchant Shipping Act, 1890," to appoint Lloyd's Registry as an authority to approve the position of load line discs, but the Board are not authorised to interfere with the conditions under which that Registry undertake the classification of foreign ships. The Merchant Shipping Act of 1890 (which is the latest enactment on the subject) does not contemplate British and foreign vessels being treated perfectly alike with regard to load line, inasmuch as the evidence necessary to authorise the detention of a vessel for overloading cannot, in the case of a foreign ship, be so easily obtained as in the case of a British vessel, which has a load line disc marked on her side; but it is my intention, as far as possible, to apply the provisions of the Act of 1876 with regard to over and improper loading in ports of the United Kingdom to foreign as well as to British ships, subject to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 1890.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can inform the House what is the number of voluntary schools in England and Wales without any voluntary subscriptions; and what is the number of such schools in which the voluntary subscriptions do not exceed £10 per annum?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The hon. Member appears to be unaware that a Return was recently presented to Parliament on the Motion of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, which gives the particulars mentioned in the Question for every school in England and Wales; and if he has time to examine the Returns carefully, he will see that such schools bear but a very small proportion to the total number. I may add that it would be misleading to publish a summary of this information, as in many cases endowments take the place of voluntary subscriptions, and subscriptions themselves vary from year
  1184
  to year, in accordance with the needs of schools.
  MR. SUMMERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Returns show that there are 500 voluntary schools without any contribution, and that the majority are without the slightest contribution? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that an analysis of the Returns is made?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: It appears from the hon. Member's statement that he has analysed the Return for himself.
  MR. SUMMERS: As the subject is of great importance in connection with the Education Bill, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have the analyses submitted to Parliament.

  HALF-TIMERS.
  MR. ELLIOTT LEES: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can now state the difference in the percentage of passes obtained by half-timers between 10 and 12 years of age, as compared with the percentage of passes obtained by full timers between those ages?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: In schools examined in the Rochdale district during a fixed period it appears that the percentage of passes in the 3rd Standard was 81 against 75 in the case of half-timers between 10 and 12; in the 4th Standard 89 against 81; and in the 5th, 84.7 against 76.7, showing a balance against half timers of 8 per cent. A comparison made in one typical school in Bradford shows very similar results, the percentage being 98·2 against 90·2 in the case of half timers between 10 and 12.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether there are any boroughs or parishes that have no standards of half-time and full-time exemption, and that exercise compulsion only between the ages of 5 and 10; and if so, what is their number; and whether there are any boroughs or parishes uhere the standard of half-time exemption is as low as the first, and the standard of full-time exemption lower than the fourth?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: (1) There are 29 parishes where compulsion prevails only between 5 and 10 years of

  1185
  age; (2) There are five parishes where Standard III is the standard for total exemption, and no standard for partial exemption exists; there are two parishes where Standard III. and II. prevail for total and partial exemption respectively; there are nine parishes where no standard for total exemption prevails, but which adopt a standard for partial exemption (8 Standard IV., 1 Standard V.); there is one parish which compels attendance right up to 13 years of age, and allows of no exemption, whole or partial; (3) There are 25 parishes which have Standard I. for partial exemption. These are remains of old bye-laws adopted before 1880. The Department has no power to compel their revision, although every effort is made to induce the School Authorities to raise the standard, as occasion offers.
  MR. SUMMERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the names of the parishes?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I should have no objection, but the information is already given in the Return which was made last year.

  THE CAPITATION GRANT.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of Parliament voting the necessary funds, any legislation would be necessary to enable the Education Department to increase the Capitation Grant to aided schools, on condition that up to certain standards or ages the teaching is free of charge?
  MR. GOSCHEN: In reply to the hon. Member, Her Majesty's Government do not consider that it would be possible to carry out a scheme such as that suggested in his question without legislative enactment.

  MASHONALAND.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether all Her Majesty's subjects have free ingress into Mashonaland and a right to reside in that territory; whether, if the Chartered Company of South Africa insists upon them signing a declaration that they will obey the laws of that company as a preliminary to ingress or residence, it is intended to take any steps to oblige the company to rescind any such regulation;
  1186
  whether he can state to whom the land belongs in Mashonaland, and whether the Chartered Company of South Africa have acquired any rights to its possession; and, if so, from whom; and whether the so-called concessions of Mutassa to the Chartered Company have been approved of by Her Majesty's Government; and, if not, by what right the Chartered Company exercises any sovereignty or power in Manicaland?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,) (for Baron H. de WORMS): Lobengula has allowed the British South Africa Company free ingress into Mashonaland, and the right to carry on operations in that territory, but no such right has, as far we are aware, been given to persons not working under the company. As regards the second question, Her Majesty's Government do not know that this requirement has been insisted upon in the case of British subjects or others recognising the company's authority. The Charter requires the British South Africa Company—
  "To preserve peace and order to the best of its ability in such ways and manners as it shall consider necessary, and with that object."
  empowers it to make ordinances. It is not proposed, therefore, to oblige the company to rescind any regulation of the nature referred to. It has been admitted that Lobengula has a control, as Paramount Chief, though he probably has not the sole ownership, of the lands in Mashonaland, and it is understood that the British South Africa Company has not acquired any specific rights to the possession of these lands; but it is in occupation of Mashonaland with the consent both of Lobengula and of the minor Chiefs. Her Majesty's Government have not expressed any final opinion upon Mutassa's concessions. The company exercises authority in any part of Manicaland, which lies within the sphere of British protection by virtue of the Charter, as I have stated in answer to the second question.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Charter specifically states that the Company can only exercise the rights they have acquired over this territory through the permission of Lobengula, and that Manicaland is admitted to be not in

  1187
  Mashonaland, whether it is under British protection or not? Am I to understand, from the answer of the hon. Gentleman, that Mashonaland is the only portion of Her Majesty's dominions which a British subject may not enter without first signing a specific undertaking to obey certain laws and regulations?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: The Charter speaks for itself. The question of the hon. Member appears to me to be a highly argumentative one, and should be made the subject of Notice.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in 1850, in view of elementary schools being erected by religious bodies with grants in aid from the Committee of Council on Education, the Committee of Council then stated that they had effectually provided already that the declaration of trust should be so specific as to preclude the possibility that a school founded in connection with any religious body should lose its distinctive character in consequence of the receipt of such grant in aid; whether many promoters of such schools accepted grants of public money on these terms; and whether, in the face of more recent legislation, these trust deeds still stand as effective (except so far as the "management" and "conscience" clauses affects them) securing for these schools, notwithstanding the fact that they were erected out of such joint funds, their distinctive character?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: There is nothing, so far as I am aware, in recent legislation to disturb the position of denominational schools, as secured to them by the declaration of trust to which my hon. Friend refers, apart, of course, from the obligation imposed by the conscience clause.

  COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTIONS.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Bill postponing the County Council elections to January will he introduced?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I hope to be able to introduce the Bill postponing
  1188
  the County Council elections in a few days, but I take the opportunity of saying that, though January was no doubt the time to which I previously stated we proposed to postpone the elections, I have received a great many representations that the month of March would be more acceptable. We, therefore, propose to put the month of March in the Bill instead of January.

  POSTMASTERSHIP OF HALLATON.
  MR. LOGAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the post of sub-postmaster at Hallaton, near Uppingham, has been vacant since the 20th of April, owing to the death of the late sub-postmaser; whether he has been informed that great inconvenience is caused to the inhabitants of Hallaton by reason of the nearest money order office now available being Uppingham, distant six miles; and whether he will take steps to have the new appointment made as soon as possible?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I am aware of the vacancy at Hallaton, and have asked the Lords of the Treasury, with whom the nomination rests, to name a successor. No representation from the inhabitants of Hallaton as to inconvenience caused by the temporary closing of the office has reached me, and the hon. Member may rest assured that no time shall be lost in re-opening the office when a suitable person for appointment as sub-postmaster has been nominated by their Lordships.

  UNESTABLISHED POSTMEN.
  MR. FURNESS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the case of the unestablished postmen who have no Sunday relief such as the established postmen have; and whether he will take into consideration the desirability of placing the unestablished postmen on the same footing as the established postmen so far as Sunday relief and stripes are concerned?
  MR. RAIKES: I am not aware of any case in which postmen who are fully employed, whether established or unestablished, have not received Sunday relief. If the hon. Member knows of any case, however, and will give me the

  1189
  particulars I will make inquiry on the subject. Good conduct stripes are only conferred upon postmen belonging to the Establishment.

  CANADIAN MAILS.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists in Canada in consequence of mails not now being sent by the Allan steamers; and whether there is any prospect of an early renewal of the direct transmission to Canada of postal communications from the United Kingdom?
  MR. RAIKES: I have not received any intimation that dissatisfaction exists in Canada on account of mails not being at present sent by the Allan Line of steamers. Since the termination of the Canadian Government contract, last month, the mails for Canada have been regularly forwarded twice a week, viâ New York, by the British Contract Packets; and they have no doubt reached their destination as quickly as they formerly did when sent by the Allan Line. Proposals have been made to my Department by the Allan Company to carry mails by their direct steamers, and my hon. Friend may rest assured that they shall receive my careful consideration.

  UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT ACT.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government has communicated with the Government of the United States, with a view to securing for English authors and composers the benefit of the new American Copyright Act, as from the 1st July, 1891; and whether Her Majesty's Government propose to introduce a Bill, giving similar rights in the United Kingdom to American authors and composers, if the latter are not already sufficiently protected?
  SIR J. GORST (for Sir J. FERGUSSON): Her Majesty's Inspector at Washington has been directed to make inquiries on the subject, and it is understood that a Circular will shortly be addressed by the United States Government to foreign Powers respecting the application to them of the new Copyright Act. Her Majesty's Government propose to await
  1190
  the receipt of this Circular before considering what steps should be taken in the matter.

  CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE COMPANIES' ACTS.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether Limited Liability Companies in the United Kingdom could obtain, until recently, from Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode, the Queen's Printers, certified copies of the Companies' Acts for production in foreign Courts of Law, without any charge for the certificate; whether the granting of such certificates has been subjected to a charge, by an official in the Parliament Office, of a guinea for certifying each Act, and 10s. 6d. for every 100 folios, bringing up the total for a set of the Companies' Acts to about £25; whether there is any reason for imposing this new charge on public companies; whether such fees are excessive; and whether he will give instructions for a more moderate scale of fees to be adopted?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. With reference to the second paragraph, the change in the practice was instituted because it was considered that, inasmuch as the Lord Chancellor has to affix the Great Seal to the Act in question, this step should only be taken upon the certificate of the Clerk of Parliaments, who is the official custodian. The fees are paid to the Treasury, and no part is paid to, or are the fees any perquisite of, the gentleman named in the question. So far as my opinion is of value, I do not see that the fees are in any way excessive. There is no obligation to obtain certified copies. Any foreign Court may, if it thinks fit, be satisfied with a copy printed by the Queen's Printers, in the same way as our Courts accept an Act so printed.

  IMMIGRATION OF DESTITUTE FOREIGNERS.
  MR. JENNINGS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, considering the recent considerable increase in the number of destitute foreigners arriving at English ports, the Government will take into consideration the expediency of adopting regulations similar to those which are in force in the

  1191
  United States and other countries, with a view to placing reasonable restrictions on the importation of foreign paupers, who disorganise various branches of the labour market in this country, and inflict great injury on native workmen?
  MR. DARLING: I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the recent landing in London of large numbers of indigent aliens; and whether, having regard to the fact that it has been found necessary to encourage English labourers to emigrate, the Government will consider the advisability of enacting laws such as those now in force in the United States for preventing the importation of persons likely to become a charge upon the people of this Kingdom?
  MR. O. V. MORGAN: I beg further to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that foreign labourers are arriving in this country in increased numbers, and whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to introduce legislation on the subject at least as stringent as that existing in the United States of North America, the Dominion of Canada, and the Australian Colonies?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The whole subject of the immigration of destitute foreigners is receiving the very serious attention of Her Majesty's Government, but it does not appear that the immigration has materially increased beyond the point it had reached when it was considered by the recent Committee, which did not recommend immediate measures. Considerable difficulty surrounds the question. The right of asylum in this country as regards political refugees has always been maintained, and restrictions upon the immigration of foreigners who may be supposed to be destitute would involve legislation which would require to be very carefully guarded in order to prevent greater evils than those against which it might be directed. Regard also must be had to the fact that there is a considerable emigration of Englishmen to the Continent where they find profitable employment; but, I repeat, the subject is a grave one deserving of careful consideration.
  MR. CREMER: Are the Government in possession of authentic information in regard to the number of persons who arrive from foreign countries and remain here, and as to the percentage of those who leave this country for the United States or other parts of the world? It is right that I should state that one of the recommendations of the Committee, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, was to the effect that information of that kind should be collected by the Government and placed at the disposal of the country. Will the Government carry out that recommendation and give the information?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer the question. Steps have been taken to obtain such information. Some of it has already been presented to Parliament, and from time to time further information will be given.

  THE FREE EDUCATION BILL.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury on what day the Bill for Free Education will be introduced and read the first time?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope to be able to state on Monday next the day on which the Bill will be introduced, provided the Land Purchase Bill does not occupy more than a reasonable time on Report in this House.

  CHILD LABOUR.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that on March 24th, 1890, Sir John Gorst applied to Lord Salisbury for permission to vote in the Labour Conference at Berlin in favour of the proposal to raise the minimum age of child labour to 12 years; whether he is aware that such permission was granted by Lord Salisbury on March 26th, and that the British delegates voted accordingly in favour of the proposal which was adopted by the Conference; and whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation carrying out the recommendations of the Conference on this subject?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The answer to the first two questions is in the affirma-

  1193
  tive. The subject is one which it is not possible to deal with this Session.
  MR. PICTON: May I ask whether there was not an understanding in the Conference that Her Majesty's Government would favour such legislation?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not aware of any such understanding.
  MR. SUMMERS: I would invite the right hon. Gentleman to state what course the Government are prepared to take in regard to the Amendments on the subject which stand upon the Paper. Will he accept such Amendments in accordance with the recommendation of the Berlin Conference?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman is aware of the attitude which the Government took in the Standing Committee on the matter. When the Amendments are reached, my right hon. Friend will state the course which the Government are ready to take.
  MR. ELLIOTT LEES: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether Germany herself has taken any action in consequence of the recommendations of the Berlin Conference?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I cannot charge my memory with the exact reply I gave some days ago. I will ascertain, if the hon. Member will repeat the question.

  THE LABOUR COMMISSION.
  MR. O. V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in consequence of the great interest felt throughout the country in the question of labour, he will arrange that Members of Parliament shall be regularly supplied with verbatim reports of the evidence to be given before the Labour Commission; and whether he will also arrange that the public may be able to purchase copies of the evidence in the same way as Parliamentary Papers are usually supplied?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I will communicate with my noble Friend at the head of the Commission and ask what course he can take in the direction which the hon. Member suggests.

  HOWTH HARBOUR.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been
  1194
  directed to a memorial to the Irish Board of Works, signed by 200 of the inhabitants of Howth, including the Right Hon. Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, Mr. Justice Boyd, the Catholic and Protestant clergymen of the locality, and all the other leading residents, in reference to the condition of that harbour; whether the Memorial referred to has yet received an answer; and, if not, why; and whether, in accordance with the prayer of that Memorial, a further sum will be set apart for completing the dredging of the harbour?
  MR. JACKSON: Yes, Sir, I have seen the Memorial referred to, and, as I have previously stated to the House, the question has been considered. I do not think there would be any justification for setting aside a further sum for the dredging of the harbour.

  DUBLIN BOARD OF WORKS.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the labourers and artisans in the employment of the Board of Works in the County and City of Dublin are paid less than the ordinary rates of wages at present prevailing in that district for those two classes of workmen respectively; and, if so, whether he will direct that the wages of the employés of the Board of Works referred to be increased, so as at least to make them equal with the wages paid by private firms?
  MR. JACKSON: I have not been able to get this information. I hope the hon. Gentleman will put the question again.
  MR. CLANCY: I will repeat it on Monday.

  ARTISANS' HOURS OF LABOUR.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the labourers and artisans in the employment of the Board of Works in the County and City of Dublin are, unlike the employés of the chief private firms of the metropolitan county and city, kept at work the whole of Saturday; and, if so, whether he will direct that they be allowed, like the employés of the private firms referred to, a half-holiday on that day in every week?
  MR. JACKSON: I am informed that the labourers and artisans in the employment of the Board of Works in Dublin leave work on Saturday at a quarter

  1195
  past 1 if their work is within the city, and at 1 o'clock if without the city. Those employed at Kingstown and at Howth have no Saturday half-holiday.
  MR. SEXTON: Why is there any difference made between those who are employed in the city and those who are employed in the outskirts?
  MR. JACKSON: I am not aware of any reason, unless there is something special in the nature of the employment which necessitates those employed in Kingstown being there during the whole of the day.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry?
  MR. JACKSON: Yes, Sir; I have no objection to do so.

  FLOODS IN BELFAST.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the disastrous floods in Shore Street, Weaver Street, and Millwater Street, in the City of Belfast, in the year 1888, and also in 1889, caused by encroachments and obstructions in the course of the Mill water River within the city boundary, and the statement of the Town Clerk of Belfast, amounting to the announcement that unless the Corporation own property in the district affected, it cannot take any steps to prevent parties encroaching upon or altering the courses of streams or rivers within the city boundary, and in flooding the houses of the inhabitants, to the danger of life and destruction of property; who the parties are to whom, as the Corporation state, they have "made representations"; and who, as stated by the Town Clerk, have "agreed to remove the cause of complaint"; what is the nature of the works stipulated or agreed to be done for this purpose; and, when such agreement was entered into, and at what date it is to be carried out and completed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Town Clerk of Belfast reports that the parties to whom the Corporation recently made representations on the subject mentioned were Messrs. John Thompson, Robert J. McConnell, and William H. McLoughlin, the owners of the property adjoining the altered portion of the watercourse. The Corporation are informed that these owners,
  1196
  with others who are interested in the water rights, have agreed with a contractor to carry out works consisting of a widened and improved channel for the water course, with side walls and pitched foundation and slopes. The Corporation do not know the date of the agreement; but have been informed that the works will be completed in about three months.

  POSTAGE OF REGISTRATION FORMS.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received any communication from Mr. Wilson, clerk of the Enniskillen Union, in reference to overcharge on the delivery of (A) requisition forms, under "The Registration Act, 1885"; whether unstamped forms have been charged double postage as alleged; and whether, as the Returns are mandatory and the Statute penal, he will make arrangements, under all the circumstances, to have those necessary legal forms delivered to the clerk of the Union free, or at the usual single postage rate?
  MR. RAIKES: I have received a communication from Mr. Wilson, clerk of the Enniskillen Union, on the subject referred to by the hon. Member, and I beg to state that when the requisition forms in question are returned through the Post Office unpaid they are charged double postage under the ordinary rule. The Legislature has conferred no privilege of free transmission through the post on the documents in question, and I have no power to treat them exceptionally.

  IRISH MAILS.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if the connecting line across Dublin is now open and available for mail traffic between Kingston and the North of Ireland; whether a proposal for an acceleration of the London mail to the North has been made to the Post Office, to arrive in Belfast at 9.45 a.m., and Londonderry at 11.30 a.m.; whether an alternative proposal, also by the Dublin route, to run a special train immediately after the arrival of the mail packet each morning at Kingstown with the night mail from London, arriving at Belfast at 9 a.m. and Londonderry at 10.30 a.m., has been made; whether both these

  1197
  proposals provide for the delivery of a sorted mail, both at Belfast and Londonderry; whether such delivery is equivalent to the saving of three-quarters of an hour; and, what reply, if any, has been made to these proposals by the Post Office?
  MR. RAIKES: The hon. Member has stated the facts with substantial accuracy. The whole subject is under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, as my hon. Friend is no doubt aware.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Will there be a delivery of assorted mails?
  MR. SEXTON: How long is it since the subject was referred to the Treasury, and will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the proposal has been considered in connection with the Larne and Stranraer route?
  MR. RAIKES: The matter has been under the consideration of the Treasury now for two or three months. Constant communications have been passing between the Treasury and the Post Office with the view of arriving at a final decision. Negotiations are now proceeding between the Post Office and the different Railway Companies. I am not in a position at present to answer the question of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), and I will ask him to put it on the Paper.

  DUNDALK AND GREENORE RAILWAY.
  MR. JORDAN: I had intended to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is able to say to which Railway Company, the London and North Western or the Great Northern (Ireland), belongs, the section from Dundalk Junction to Dundalk Quay Station, on the Dundalk and Greenore line; whether he is aware that a filthy and unsanitary open ditch runs for a considerable distance parallel with the rails within the railway ambit; and whether it is competent to the Board of Trade to take cognizance of such a condition of affairs; and, if so, will he take steps to have this nuisance remedied? At the request of the right hon. Gentleman I beg to defer the question.

  ENNISKILLEN AS AN ARMY STATION.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the authorities at the War Office have deter-
  1198
  mined definitely, as stated in the Fermanagh Reporter of Thursday last, 21st instant, that for the future Enniskillen will not be a head-quarters station?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Yes, Sir; as soon as the necessary barrack accommodation is provided elsewhere.
  MR. JORDAN: Now that it is decided to remove head-quarters, will the right hon. Gentleman, with Lord Wolseley and the Military Authorities, consider the propriety of removing the residuum of the military from Enniskillen.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir.

  POST OFFICE AT SKIBBEREEN.
  DE. KENNY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is the intention of the Postal Authorities to erect a new post office on a site in North Street, Skibbereen, South Cork; whether the said site in North Street is near the extreme end of the town, and hence most inconveniently situated to nine-tenths of the inhabitants whose places of business are in Main Street and Bridge Street, and High Street, nearly half a mile distant, where are also situated the chief hotels, town hall, &c.; whether he is aware that a meeting of the inhabitants of Skibbereen, presided over by the Chairman of the Town Commissioners, was held some months since, at which a resolution was unanimously passed recommending as the place most convenient to the general public, for the new post office, a site at the junction of High Street and Market Street, previously approved of; whether he is aware that this resolution was subsequently endorsed at a meeting of the Town Commissioners, who offered to lease the site in question on easy terms to the Postal Authorities; whether the latter did not at the time agree to the proposal; and whether, in view of the great public inconvenience which will be caused by the erection of the proposed office so far from the centre of the town, he will direct its erection on the site offered by the Town Commissioners?
  MR. RAIKES: The duty of providing accommodation for the Post Office work at Skibbereen rests upon the Postmaster. In February last he applied for permission to move the business to a new office which he proposed to build on a site in North Street. No other suitable site or

  1199
  house was available at the time, better accommodation was urgently needed, and permission was given. The site is only 200 yards from the Square, which is considered to be the centre of business, and is nearer to it than the present office. I am informed that the site at the junction of High Street and Market Street recommended by the meeting referred to, is really a portion of the Square, and is much frequented on market days. I am also informed that the Town Commissioners have never offered a lease of it. The Postmaster has completed his arrangements for the new office in North Street, and it is not practicable to disturb them.

  LAND PURCHASE ACTS.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has noticed in the Times of 25th May, a statement asserting that the Land Purchase Acts have been abused in the following particulars—
  "The son of a landlord buys from his father two farms at a little over £3,000 each, total £6,000. A purchaser buys a demesne or home farm in five separate conveyances, of £2,000 each, total £10,000 to one purchaser,"
  and whether he has any reason to believe that such or any similar transactions have actually taken place; if so, whether he has done anything to check such things, or has any power to do so; and, if not, whether, in the event of his not proceeding with the Land Department Bill, he will propose any measures to prevent the possibility of abuses under the new Act such as have occurred under the Ashbourne Acts?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have observed the letter published in the Times of May 26th, to which I presume the hon. Member refers. It is the case that, as the law stood prior to 1887 there was no limit in the number of advances which could be made to any one tenant-purchaser. But under the Land Act passed in that year the amount of an advance to any one purchaser was limited to a sum not exceeding £5,000 in all, which was modified by Section 2 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1888, to a sum not exceeding £3,000, except where expedient for the purpose of carrying out sales on the same estate, when an advance not exceeding £5,000 might be made. This
  1200
  limitation continues and would be applicable in the case of any sale under the proposed legislation now before the House.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has reason to believe that the facts are as stated in the question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I gather, at all events, that that might have been done before the Act of 1887.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take any measures to prevent such abuses from taking place in the future?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have told the hon. Gentleman that we have taken two measures to stop them—one under the Act of 1887 and another under the Act of 1888.

  METALS AND MINERALS IN IRELAND
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the sales made in virtue of the Ashbourne Acts were based upon the agricultural value of the holdings and did not include any sum in respect of the metals and minerals which might be in the lands sold; whether, under the Purchase of Land and Congested Districts (Ireland) Bill, the price of the holdings is also intended to be based on the agricultural value alone; and whether, considering the value to be received by the purchasers in respect of the Imperial credit and of the local guarantee, the Government will take such steps as will insure that the metals and minerals should either be the property of the nation or belong to the Local Authorities for local taxation purposes?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware of any case in which a holding known to contain metals or minerals of an appreciable value was sold under the Ashbourne Acts. The sales made under these Acts were therefore naturally based upon the agricultural value. A like basis of value would regulate sales under the legislation proposed by the present Bill.

  SEA WALL AT LAHINCH.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a protection sea wall at the village of Lahinch, County Clare, and

  1201
  several houses have been swept away; whether any memorial or resolutions from the people of the district in reference to the rebuilding of the wall have been forwarded to the Government; whether the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in his recent visit to the West of Ireland saw the wreck, and if the inhabitants solicited his help in the matter; and whether, under all the circumstances, the poverty of the district and the nature and purpose of the work, he will grant the aid sought to rebuild the wall and repair the damage during the summer months?
  MR. JACKSON: I received a memorial last autumn, but I do not find that it is a matter for which the Government could make any grant.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen the letter recently addressed to the Assistant Commissioners of Intermediate Education in Ireland, by Mr. William Wilkins, on behalf of the Schoolmasters' Association, and the resolutions accompanying it; whether objection is made to the inclusion of Celtic, at the expense of the abandonment of some more useful language, ancient or modern; and whether he can state the course which the Commissioners of Intermediate Education intend to adopt in reference to these resolutions?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Assistant Commissioners of Intermediate Education Report that the Resolutions referred to, together with other communications relative to the published Programmes of the Board, have been under consideration, and the Board purpose submitting additional Rules to the Lord Lieutenant in due course.

  DUBLIN HOSPITALS BILL.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when he intends to re-introduce the Dublin Hospitals Bill?
  MR. JACKSON: I am bound to say that I have found it impossible to satisfy myself that I could introduce a Bill with any hope of passing it without opposition.

  LOANS TO SCHOOLS, &c.(IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the cause of the prolonged delay in circulating the Loans to Schools and Training Colleges (Ireland) Bill, introduced on the 8th of April, and set down for Second Reading on Monday last?
  MR. JACKSON: There has been some delay and difficulty in determining the precise form in which the grant should be given. If the hon. Member will put down a question for this day week I think I may be able to answer it.

  TRALEE AND DINGLE LIGHT RAILWAY.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Tralee and Dingle Light Railway Company, with a capital of £150,000, consists of nine members, while there are 10 Directors, only two of whom hold shares in the company, and that the 10 Directors will be able to draw £20 a year each from the receipts; whether he is aware that the Directors, over seven months before the opening of the line, appointed a secretary at £200 a year, and a manager at £150, which they have lately increased to £200 a year; while, on several other railway lines, the duties of the two offices are performed by one official; whether the secretary was appointed at a meeting of the Board without any previous public announcement, that he is the son of the Vice Chairman of the company, both of whom are engaged in local commercial business, and that the appointment has given rise to a great deal of dissatisfaction among the other local traders, since their business over the line will be open to the inspection of a rival trader, thus placing them at a very serious disadvantage; and whether, since this line was built under the Tramways (Ireland) Act of 1883, the Treasury will contribute half the required guarantee, when such expenses have been incurred?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no official information upon the points raised in the question, and I would

  1203
  suggest that the hon. Gentleman should address his inquiry to the Treasury.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the recent Repot of General Hutchinson, the Board of Trade Inspector, on the Tralee and Dingle Light Railway and Tramway in the County Kerry; if the steepest railway gradient in the Kingdom (1 in 30) is on this line, a distance of three miles, on which gradient the train has been stopped twice while ascending, first, to get up steam, second, to examine the brake; and if these stoppages are, as alleged, in accordance with General Hutchinson's orders; whether, shortly after the opening of the line, the couplings of the waggons and the rolling stock generally were in such bad condition that the company has had to apply to the Lord Lieutenant for a free grant, to replace and repair the carriages and engines; whether the scale of speed laid down by General Hutchinson is being adhered to; whether trains are permitted to be run after sunset, and if it is legal to lock both doors of carriages while the train is in motion; and whether he is aware that, of the six regular Directors, four, including the Chairman, have no shares in the company, and if this state of things is in accordance with the Companies' Acts?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes, Sir. The Reports of General Hutchinson to the Board of Trade have been before me. The steepest gradient on the line is, as stated, 1 in 30. This is unusually steep, but I am aware of certainly two other gradients as steep. I know nothing of the stoppages referred to in the second part of the question. The company, having undertaken to comply with the recommendations contained in General Hutchinson's Reports of the 24th December, 1890, and of the 16th of March last, including the scale of speed, were, on the 17th March, permitted to open the line. There is nothing in the Regulations to prevent the running of trains after sunset, or in the law to prevent the locking of both doors; which latter, however, is an extremely undesirable proceeding. I have no knowledge of the number of shares held by the Directors, and I am not aware of any general provision in the Acts relating to companies
  1204
  which prescribes the number of shares to be held by a Director.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I rise to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whom I am glad to see amongst us to-day, what arrangements he intends to make with respect to Public Business. First of all, I want to know what are the intentions of the Government with reference to the Free Education Bill. We have always understood on this side of the House that the Government proposed to introduce that Bill after the Committee on the Land Bill. Is it their intention now to proceed with the Report stage of the Land Bill before taking the First Reading of the Education Bill? I could understand their proceeding with the Land Bill before moving the Second Reading of the other measure; but I do not understand why they should postpone the First Reading. That would bean unopposed stage, and it would give the House and the country the opportunity of considering the character of the measure. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider this, and agree to take the First Reading of the Education Bill before the Report stage of the Land Bill. The second question I wish to ask is, what day the right hon. Gentleman can appoint for the discussion of the affairs of Manipur? There are reasons why that discussion should not be postponed. We are anxious to hear the views of the Government upon this subject, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to fix an early date. Then with reference to the Bill which stands second on the Paper to-day—the Factories and Workshops Bill—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree not to press it forward to-night. Very strong appeals have been made by the Government not to do so by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. Fowler) and the right hon. Member for Bury (Sir H. James).
  MR. W. H. SMITH: In answer to the first question of the right hon. Gentleman, I have to remind him that the language I have uniformly used in this House is that the Free Education Bill would be introduced when the Land Purchase Bill was through its stages in this House, and I think it would be con-

  1205
  venient that we should adhere to that course.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to interpose for a moment. I presume that in the case of a Bill of this importance the right hon. Gentleman contemplates that there will be a considerable interval between the First and Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I fully recognise the importance of that. In fact, I think I have already stated that the Government recognise the necessity of allowing a sufficient interval to elapse order that the Bill may be considered in the country as well as by the House. With regard to the second question of the right hon. Gentleman relating to the discussion which he desires to raise upon the occurrences at Manipur, I will ask him to be good enough to postpone the question until Monday, when I hope to be able to tell more accurately what will be the course of Public Business during the next week or 10 days. I recognise the necessity for a discussion upon the subject of Manipur, and I will take care that it is not unduly delayed. As to the postponement of the Factories and Workshops Bill, which stands in the second place for consideration this evening, I think it must be admitted that when a measure has been put down for a particular day, it ought to be considered on that day, unless very strong reasons are given against that course. The right hon. Gentleman has not referred to one reason for postponement, which has been mentioned to me privately, and that is the absence, which we all regret, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), who took a prominent part in the consideration of this measure in the Standing Committee. I should be the last person to wish to urge a measure forward in the absence of a prominent Member of this House who has taken a strong interest in it. At the same time, it is undoubtedly for the convenience of the House that arrangements made for the progress of Bills should generally be adhered to. But on this occasion there is another reason why I should hesitate to force this measure on. It is always better to secure the co-operation of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite rather than their opposition in matters of this
  1206
  kind; and seeing that a change has supervened in relation to the discussion of the Newfoundland Bill, which stands first on the Paper this evening, and which we shall ask the House to read a second time—we hope without discussion —I think that perhaps I may be justified in the circumstances in yielding— [Ministerial cries of "No!" and "Hear, hear!"]—to the request made with regard to the Factories and Workshops Bill, on the understanding that we make serious progress in Committee of Supply this evening. I know that in making this concession I am disappointing a large number of hon. Members who sit behind me; but I feel that the interests which they have at heart will be forwarded rather than delayed by the course which I am now taking. I believe that we could not dispose of the Bill to-night in the face of the opposition with which it would probably be met were we to persevere with it, and I think I may count upon the readiness of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to dispose of the measure in a single Sitting on a future occasion. I very much regret the absence of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, and I hope it will be possible for him to be in his place when the Bill appears on the Order Paper at a future date. I hope it will be understood that when that date is fixed there will positively be no departure from the arrangement made.
  SIR H. JAMES: I am aware that there is no question before the House; but with your permission, Sir. and that of the House generally, I may perhaps be allowed to add a word to what has fallen from the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) in support of his appeal for the postponement of the Factories Bill. I yield to no one in my desire to see the Bill pass, but I fear that if the measure is pressed this evening, progress will be delayed by artificial Amendments. I believe that time will really be gained by postponing the consideration of the Bill. It may be said that the absence of one Member of this House, who takes great interest in the measure, is not sufficient ground for postponement; but there is a certain courtesy due to Members on whichever side of the House they sit. Such courtesy has lately been extended to the Government when

  1207
  several Members in charge of Departments have been away through illness. I may add that there is no Member of this House to whom the children employed in the manufacture of textile fabrics owe more than they do to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, who has taken the greatest interest in the question of the age at which children shall be employed. When the question was raised in the Standing Committee the right hon. Gentleman bore the burden of the Debate, and I am sure it will facilitate matters if he can be present when the Bill is discussed.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I wish to express the great regret felt amongst Members on this side of the House at the cause of the absence of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, but we also regret that the First Lord of the Treasury has not intimated before this evening that the Bill is not to be taken. The convenience of all other Members of the House ought not to be disregarded for the convenience of the right hon. Member for Sheffield alone. A large number of Members have come to the House this evening with the special purpose of discussing the Factories Bill, and now at the last moment the consideration of the measure is to be postponed. The right hon. Gentleman was not present when the question of half-timers was exhaustively discussed in the Standing Committee, and there are many Members on the other side of the House competent to express their views on the question. I therefore regret that the First Lord of the Treasury should have given way.
  MR. ELLIOTT LEES: It is a source of very great inconvenience to us that this alteration has been made. All our arrangements have been made on the supposition that the Debate would take place to-day, and I think we are at least entitled to ask that we should have full and sufficient notice given to us as to when the Bill is to be taken.
  MR. SEXTON: It is necessary that the Irish Members should be informed precisely of the intentions of the Government with reference to the Irish Land Purchase Bill. I wish to ask whether the Report will be taken on Monday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Report will be taken on Monday. In answer to my hon. Friend, notice will be given when
  1208
  the Factories and Workshops Bill will be taken.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: What course do the Government intend to take with regard to the Newfoundland Fisheries Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Communications have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Newfoundland delegates which have resulted in an understanding, which I will state to the House. It has been agreed between the delegates and Her Majesty's Government that the Newfoundland Fisheries Bill should be read a second time on the understanding that the Bill passed by the Newfoundland Legislature shall secure the observance of the modus vivendi, and of the decision of the arbiters under the modus vivendi and of the Treaties in force between this country and France until the end of 1893. Under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government have thought it right to recommend the House, in accordance with the suggestion of the delegates themselves, to read the Newfoundland Fisheries Bill a second time, I hope with out discussion, which under the circum-stances of the agreement could hardly be profitable. Her Majesty's Government will then postpone the further consideration of the Bill for three weeks, with a view to its ultimate withdrawal if a measure is passed by the Newfoundland Legislature in the form in which the delegates themselves undertook that it should be passed. Her Majesty's Government rejoice, and I believe every Member of this House will rejoice, that such an arrangement has been come to, an arrangement which will be to the advantage not only of Newfoundland, but of the Empire at large.
  MR. A. STAVELEY HILL: The House will, perhaps, allow me to postpone what I have to say on behalf of the delegates till we come to the Second Reading.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the event of the Report of the Irish Land Purchase Bill being concluded on Tuesday, the Government propose to take Wednesday for its consideration?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: My hon. Friend has probably forgotten that the Govern-

  1209
  ment have the time of the House with the exception of Wednesday for the Land Bill. If the Report stage be not concluded on Monday it will be taken on Tuesday, and on Thursday and Friday, and so on.
  R. SYDNEY BUXTON: What will be first to-morrow?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: We shall take Supply and some of the Bills on to-day's Paper.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: When will the Budget Bill be taken?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I had hoped that the Debate on the Bill would have been concluded on Tuesday, and it is rather a surprise to all parties that it has been prolonged. I propose to take the adjourned Debate at half-past 11 to-night.

  CONTRACTS WITH FOREIGNERS.
  Return ordered—
  "Of all Contracts for articles of Home Manufacture made in the United Kingdom by the several Government Departments between the 1st day of April, 1890, and the 31st day of March, 1891, with contractors outside the United Kingdom (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 189, of Session 1890)."—(Mr. Howard Vincent.)

  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (CIVIL EMPLOYMENT).
  Return ordered—
  "Showing, by Departments, the number of clerks or permanent messengers in the Civil Service, or park or lodge keepers under the Office of Works, the Office of Woods and Forests, or the Board of Green Cloth, appointed since the 1st day of September, 1887, and the number of such clerks, permanent messengers, park or lodge keepers, who, prior to appointment, served in the Navy, Army, or Royal Marines, in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee appointed in 1877 'to inquire how far it was practicable that Soldiers, sailors, and Marines, who had meritoriously served their Country, should be employed in such Civil Departments of the public service as they may be found fitted for'(in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 341, of Session. 1887.")—(Mr. Howard Vincent.)

  NEW WRIT.
  For the City of London, v. Sir Robert Nicholas Fowler, baronet, deceased.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES BILL [LORDS].—(No. 339.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I shall not occupy the time of the House for more than a very few minutes in moving the Second Reading, relying upon an understanding which has been arrived at between the delegates and ourselves as to the necessity of taking this stage. The House is aware that the Bill has been promoted solely with the view of enabling Her Majesty's Government to carry out obligations which now exist between this country and France. Unless a measure of this kind were passed, either by Newfoundland or by this country, Her Majesty's Government would be without the power of carrying out their obligations. A letter which has been received by the Secretary of State for the Colonies from the delegates will justify the course which I am about to take on the present occasion. He addresses my noble Friend in these terms:—
  "May 27,1891.
  "My Lord,—We learn that Her Majesty's Government are not averse to the proposition made by us relative to the passing of a temporary Act for carrying out the modus vivendi respecting the lobster fishery, the execution of the award which may be made under the agreement for arbitration as regards lobsters, and the Treaties, provided that such Act is made to terminate at the end of the year 1893. We make this proposition with considerable reluctance, and refrain from recommending its conclusion by the Local Legislature without receiving from Her Majesty's Government an assurance that in case such Bill be passed, Her Majesty's Government will, first, withdraw the Bill now before the House of Commons after its Second Reading; secondly, will also give an assurance that the terms of a permanent Bill to be passed by the Colonial Legislature based upon the principle of the establishment of Courts under Judges or Magistrates, instead of under naval officers, for the adjudication of questions arising under the Treaties, modus Vivendi, and award of the present arbitration, be forthwith discussed with the delegates, and arranged. Such permanent Act, when passed by the Colonial Legislature, might at once supersede the present colonial temporary Act. In case no such permanent Act can be arranged and passed, which we cannot conceive as probable, of course it will be competent for Par-

  1211
  liament to pass such an Act before the end of the year 1893 as it may deem necessary for the carrying out of the Treaties, &c."
  My noble Friend wrote at once to the delegates that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to give an assurance that they will withdraw the Imperial Bill after the Second Reading if the Colonial Legislature will pass a temporary Bill making adequate provision to enable us to fulfil our obligations until the end of 1893. Her Majesty's Government are also prepared to arrange with the Colonial Government for a permanent Bill. That is a statement of the condition of affairs as between Her Majesty's Government and the delegates of the Newfoundland Legislature at the present time. I hope that in asking the House to refrain from entering into all the circumstances of the case which render this legislation necessary at the present moment the House will see that I am consulting the interest of the colony and the interest of that good understanding which I trust will always exist between the inhabitants of the colonies and the Government of this country. This is a question of the greatest possible moment in the interest of the colony and of the Empire. Whatever Government may be in power, it must desire that the engagements to which we are committed must be observed at once by the Government at home, and by those Local Governments which are in any way concerned. I trust that the House will accept the Second Reading.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
  MR. A. STAVELEY HILL: I am sorry I cannot completely endorse what has fallen from my right hon. Friend as to the action of the Colonial Office in this matter; Her Majesty's Government have taken every step rather to irritate than to conciliate the Colonial Legislature. ["Oh, oh!"] It was only at the very last moment, when the Motion had been made that the delegates be heard at the Bar, that they were informed that their proposal was accepted. This Bill was brought in to replace the lapsed temporary Act. It was only about a year ago that it was discovered that there
  1212
  were no powers to enforce the Treaty claims, and it became necessary to pass a Bill which would enable Her Majesty's Government to carry out their engagements. The existing state of things has been largely brought about by the manner in which the Treaty rights have been carried out. May I be allowed to read the statement that would have been made by the delegates had they come to this Bar, as showing the feeling that was necessarily excited on the state of facts that came before the public—
  "British statesmen," the Newfoundland delegates say, "have declared that the French have only a right to fish in common with British subjects in the waters of the Treaty coast; but British naval officers have prevented British fishermen from fishing there, have driven them from their own waters, and French naval officers have been permitted to commit similar acts with impunity. British fishing vessels, in going into harbours upon the Treaty coast for refuge on their way to fish upon the Labrador, have, in like manner, been driven to sea because they presumed to fish while there. British statesmen have declared that the erection of lobster factories by the French upon the Treaty coast is a violation of the Treaties; and M. Waddington declared that two Frenchmen having commenced erecting lobster factories, their erections took the form of solid permanent buildings, and must be removed.' Yet a British lobster factory upon the Treaty coast was removed by order of a British naval officer, who permitted a French lobster factory to be erected in the same place, and the British fisherman is up to this day without redress, notwithstanding that strong representations were made to Her Majesty's Government in his behalf. Her Majesty is the Sovereign of the soil of Newfoundland, and yet a British subject, having erected a house at some distance from the shore on the Treaty coast, purposing to prosecute agricultural operations, had his house pulled down by order of a French naval officer, and up to this day no redress or compensation has been afforded him, notwithstanding strong appeals in his case to Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty is the Sovereign of the soil of Newfoundland, and yet the local Government is prevented from making grants of land up to a half mile from high-water mark, without being clogged with conditions which render the title so precarious that no prudent man will invest capital in developing the mining, agricultural, and other internal industrial resources of the country in proximity to the Treaty coast. All such operations on this part of the Island are stopped, extending over a distance of about 700 miles of coast. Her Majesty is the Sovereign of the soil of Newfoundland, and yet the working of mines upon the Treaty coast has been stopped by French intervention, and in one case a French officer threatened to fire upon the buildings erected for the operation of a mine upon this coast. The herring fishery at Sandy point, in St. George's

  1213
  Bay on the Treaty coast, has been prosecuted by British subjects for over 60 years without molestation or hindrance from the French until within the last three years, and yet a French officer presumed to land upon the coast and stopped their fishing, which was the sole means of, their support. Numerous other examples may be adduced illustrative of the condition I have described."
  I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury when he said that the Treaties made by Great Britain must be respected and executed. The Newfoundland delegates came over here instructed by both sides in the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly of the Island first to enter into terms for the passing of a temporary Bill to carry out the modus vivendi; secondly, to arrange the terms of a, permanent Bill to carry out the arbitration and Treaty rights; and, thirdly, more important than all, to arrange a judicial system for the administration of those Treaty rights. The greatest burden and grievance to the Newfoundlanders has been the way in which the Treaty rights under the Treaty of Utrecht have been administered. The French, in fact, have been far more clever in the matter than we have. Sir J. D. Hardy, Sir F. Kelly and Sir Hugh Cairns have given their Opinion on the question, and it recognises the injustice inflicted on the Newfoundlanders. The French have certainly looked more closely into the matter than the English have, and have made good use of the knowledge they have thus obtained. It is by these means that they have been able to make from time to time the encroachments they have effected on their Treaty rights. The course taken by the French has been to send an old and experienced naval officer to Newfoundland, who would remain there eight or ten years, would know everything that was going on, and would be able to judge how the interests of the, French could be best served to the exclusion of the British, England, on the contrary, has been in the habit of sending out young lieutenants of gunboats for terms of two years, or less, and consequently from want of experience they have been placed at a great disadvantage compared with the French officer, and British and Newfoundland interests have suffered in consequence. Hence, when any case has
  1214
  come before these maritime tribunals, the Newfoundlanders have generally got the worst of it. The people of Newfoundland, therefore, appealed to Her Majesty's Government to send them out some competent Magistrate, some person or persons of high character, who both, on board and On shore, would judicially administer the Treaty Law, and they declared that with such an arrangement they would be content. The delegates understood that the terms with which they started from the Island, and to which I have referred, had been accepted, and if hon. Members will look to what was said in the House of Lords they will find that those terms were accepted by Lord Salisbury and Lord Knutsford. But the delegates found that the Government required that there should be a longer extension of time to meet the contingency of Parliament being adjourned, or, possibly dissolved, at the time when the Act might come to an end; and they were willing to accept this, and we all felt the Bill must be passed, and I quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby that we could not have come down to oppose this Bill if the Colonial Bill had not been passed by the Newfoundland Legislature. Sir William Whiteway and his colleagues, having carried out most honourably everything they had promised, cabled across to Newfoundland and the time was extended. The Act as it now stands will, by the action of the Newfoundland Legislature, be in operation until the end of 1893, and the modus vivendi has also been extended to meet the requirements of the Government. What, then, is the present position of the delegates? They have done everything the Government requires; they have, I venture to say, loyally and completely carried out all that has been required of them. They have passed the Act in the form I have stated. I do not like to make any complaint, especially against my own political Friends, but I am bound to say that the delegates have certainly been treated with scant courtesy by the Colonial Office, which they have always found running counter, for some reason or other, to them, I am glad, however, that the terms have been accepted. I must remind the House that it was not

  1215
  until half-past 3 o'clock this afternoon that I had placed in my hands the letter then sent to the Newfoundland delegates from the Colonial Office, in which the Colonial Secretary wrote—
  "I have the pleasure of conveying to you an, assurance from Her Majesty's Government that after the Second Reading they will withdraw the Bill which is now before the House of Commons. I have further to acquaint you that Her Majesty's Government are prepared forthwith to discuss and arrange with you the terms of a permanent Bill to be passed by the Colonial Legislature on the general principle referred to in the second paragraph of your letter of the 27th inst., and I am to add that the views of Her Majesty's Government in respect to the other points mentioned in that letter have been stated in the previous correspondence."
  I am glad, indeed, that the terms have been accepted, and I join heartily in the wish of the Leader of the House that the matter may be settled without further difficulty.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am quite sure I express the sentiments of both sides of the House when I say that the House of Commons has heard with the greatest satisfaction that the unhappy controversy which has been going on now for some weeks between the Newfoundland delegates and Legislature and Her Majesty's Government is at last happily closed. With reference to that controversy, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has deprecated discussion on the subject. There is one way in which he might have avoided discussion, and in which I think he ought to have done so, namely, by not asking the House of Commons, as a mere matter of form, to read this Bill a second time. Why are we reading it a second time? It is a Bill most offensive in its character to the Colony of Newfoundland, and to read it a second time is, I think, in the circumstances, absolutely unnecessary, after what I call the very high-minded conduct on the part of the delegates and the Legislature of Newfoundland. What is the necessity for this measure, and why are we asked to read it a second time? I do not hesitate to say that if, after the course which the Legislature of Newfoundland has pursued, and which the delegates have followed, there had been any attempt to force this Bill through the House of Commons, it would have received the most determined resistance
  1216
  from the vast majority of the House Therefore, I ask again, Why is the Bill to be read a second time? The right hon. Gentleman said it is assented to by the delegates. Yes; but I imagine that the delegates and people of Newfoundland would be better pleased if the Bill were not read a second time. I can conceive no greater catastrophe that could have happened to Great Britain than if this quarrel between the Mother Country and one of her most ncient colonies had come to an issue. From first to last I may say I think the conduct of the colony and of the delegates has been beyond all praise. ["Hear, hear!" and "Oh, oh!" from the Government side.] I notice the unfortunate spirit exhibited by that utterance—a spirit which has nearly brought us into an extremely false position. It is that domineering and dictating spirit which is a great danger in dealing with our Colonial Empire. For this is not a question of Newfoundland alone—it is a question as to our dealing with our self-governing colonies in other parts of the world. Depend upon it, that this is not a question of Newfoundland alone. Although the controversy is closed now, there is a lesson to be drawn from it which will be of use in our dealings with our self-governing colonies in every part of the world. Depend upon it, you could not have passed a measure of this kind without arousing a great amount of feeling and resentment in all our self-governing colonies in every part of the world. What is the controversy which has been going on for the last few weeks between Her Majesty's Government and the Colony of New found land? The right hon. Gentleman said that international obligations must be observed. We all agree in that. The Colony of Newfoundland and the delegates have always admitted that, for they have declared their willingness to consent and be parties to a measure which would secure the performance of international obligations. There has never been a controversy about that. But naturally the people of" Newfoundland have felt the extremely onerous and irksome position in which they were placed by ancient Treaties. They had a right to demand that the English Government should use their influence to ameliorate that position by negotiations of all kinds. Anybody who

  1217
  has looked at the map and who knows what is called the French shore of Newfoundland must feel what is the irritation existing among the population of Newfoundland, and what is the necessary inconvenience to which they are subjected. Let hon. Gentlemen endeavour to picture to themselves what would be the feeling of the inhabitants of Great Britain if along the shore from Portsmouth to John o' Groat's—along a length of 700 miles—there was not a single Englishman who could erect a building, or construct a railway, or conduct any of the business of civilised life on that shore. The people of Newfoundland naturally felt that that was a great grievance, and they desired that some method should be found to relieve them from that inconvenience. People in that situation well deserved the greatest consideration at the hands of Her Majesty's Government, and ought to have been dealt with most tenderly and most judiciously. I cannot say that I have seen in these transactions a disposition to meet the colony in that spirit. In another place language was used which I thought was of a most cynical and irritating character. But in spite of that the delegates made this offer, when Sir W. White way was heard at the Bar of the House of Lords. They said, "We will give you practically your existing powers, if it comes to that, for a year, or whatever time may be necessary, to allow us to turn round, and to give us elbow room in order that we may consider what is the best method of coming to some permanent arrangement." What, under this Bill, which the Government have laid on the Table, is the proposal and the jurisdiction to carry out the international obligations? In a self-governing colony a young and inexperienced officer of a man-of-war may go to the shore and pull down buildings, and oust the jurisdiction of that colony and the whole of its Government and its officers, and its Magistrates. That is a situation which is intolerable to a proud and sensitive people, and if they were not proud and sensitive they would not deserve the situation they hold of being the oldest colony almost of the Crown. They naturally desired to be relieved from that particular method of enforcing international obligations. They justly demanded that you should, with them,
  1218
  consider some method, by means of Courts within their territory, to carry out the international obligations in a more regular and less forcible manner than by invasion by these officers. The proposal of the delegates was this. They said, "We will pass a temporary Bill for a year, or longer if necessary; but give us time with you to settle upon a permanent Bill, which will have the effect of securing in a manner less grating to our sentiments the international obligations." How was that demand met? Everybody understood, after Sir W. Whiteway made his propositions in the other House of Parliament, that those propositions were accepted I knew that from friends of mine with whom we act in another place. That was fully understood from the answer of the Government to Sir W. Whiteway. But the Government say, "No, we will not accept your proposal of a temporary arrangement which will secure the fulfilment of the international obligations as long as may be necessary." Nobody is more desirous than I am not to do anything to justly raise any feeling on the part of France, but as long as the international obligations are fulfilled, it is a matter of no concern to France what are the arrangements between ourselves and our colonies as to the mode of producing that result. It is not a question between France and ourselves as to our carrying out our Treaty obligations towards that country. It is for us and our colonies to consider a method of giving effect to our international obligations which would be acceptable to our colonies in their painful and difficult position. I say that the demand of the colony that a temporary arrangement should be made to give them time to consider what should be the permanent status of the Courts and their jurisdiction within the colony, was a most fair and reasonable arrangement, and yet in a method which the Times newspaper a day or two ago described as "casuistical" the Government said: "These are permanent obligations, and you must pass a permanent Bill at once." A more unreasonable contention I never heard in my life. You were to cram this Bill down the throats of the colonists at a few weeks' notice, and were to give no time whatever for considerations which required great reflection in order to settle a per-

  1219
  manent Bill, and they said, "We will not accept a temporary measure you; must pass a permanent Bill at once, or we will proceed with a hostile Bill in Parliament against you, a self-governing colony." A more unwise, injudicious, and un states man like proceeding I never heard of. We have a right to ask that the Correspondence should be placed on the Table of the House. The delegates sent to the Press on Tuesday the most recent letters which have passed between them and the Colonial Office, and the last word of the Colonial Office was, "We will not listen to anything except a permanent Bill passed by you at once." An answer to that was sent by the delegates, but they received no reply. In a matter of such delicacy and difficulty that, in my opinion, was not the way to treat persons like the Representatives of the Colony of Newfoundland. The delegates have gone beyond their original offer, and they say they will give you the existing jurisdiction for two years if you will give them time to consult with you in reference to the framing of a permanent measure. Happily, at last the Government have come to the conclusion that that is an offer which ought not to be rejected. I was amused at seeing in one of the Government organs this morning an assertion that the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has to-day accepted is one which could not be listened to for a moment, and must be rejected on the grounds stated in the Despatch of Mr. Herbert of the 8th of May. That is an unfortunate way of dealing with a question of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Read this Bill a second time, and it will not be proceeded with in case the Legislature of Newfoundland passes such a Bill as has been proposed." Such a Bill had been actually passed by the Legislature at the time when the right hon. Gentleman asked the House of Commons to read this Bill a second time. If you want to irritate people that is the way to do it. We know what has come from this method of dealing with colonies from the earliest history of the dealings of this country with the North American colonies. Hon. Members will remember the lines of Prior which were applied by Lord Chatham to the treatment of persons in this situation when he said—
  1220
  "Be to their virtues very kind;
  "Be to their, faults a little blind;
  "And clap your padlock—on their mind."
  That, in my opinion, is not the spirit in which you should have dealt with this matter at all. From the moment the delegates from Newfoundland and the Legislature show that they are prepared to give you the power of their own authority that is necessary to fulfil international obligations, this controversy ought to be closed at once. Of course, accidents may occur, although I confess I cannot see why a year should not have been enough to arrange for a permanent Bill. But you laid it down that you would not listen to any proposition whatever—that you would give them no time to consider a permanent Bill. That was a method of treatment which, in my opinion, they had a right to resent. I think the House ought to have on the Table the Correspondence which has passed within the last few weeks between the delegates and the Colonial Office. I am extremely glad that this controversy may now be considered closed. Although the delegates have consented to the Second Reading of this Bill, I regret that the House should be obliged to place such a measure—a most wanton and unnecessary measure—upon its Journals; but, under the circumstances, I shall certainly not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I regret that at a time when a settlement of this question has been arrived at, an attack should have been made by the hon. Member for Staffordshire in a partisan and irritating speech upon Her Majesty's Government and the French, and I still more regret that the right hon. Member for Derby should have thrown fuel upon the fire. As a humble follower of the right hon. Member for Derby, I desire to express my entire dissent from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is right in attributing all the blame to the Representatives of this country, or in saying that the conduct of the Representatives of the colony is beyond all praise. My own view is just the contrary. The delegates commenced by saying that they would agree to no terms except the expulsion of the French

  1221
  from Newfoundland. I think the first demands of the delegates were most unreasonable, and they have only receded from their original position, step by step, and fighting every inch of the way, under the compulsion of the present Bill. If this Bill had not been persevered with we would never have had this compromise. I do not understand from the statements of the First Lord of the Treasury and the hon. Member for Staffordshire that the Colonial Bill has been finally passed.
  MR. A. STAVELEY HILL: It has been passed by both Houses.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: If the Colonial Bill has actually and formally been passed in the exact form Her Majesty's Government demands, and if it will remain in force until 1893, then I quite admit the Second Reading of the Bill before the House is a mere formality; but that acknowledgment does not in any degree carry with it an admission that it is wise or right of the hon. Member for Staffordshire to make an irritating and partisan speech, or that it is right for the right hon. Member for Derby to make a partisan speech unduly favourable to the Representatives of Newfoundland. As I understand, the compromise has only been arrived at today. I think myself justified in making a humble protest against the remarks which have been made derogatory to the Representatives of this country, and far too favourable to the Representatives of Newfoundland. I would have greater sympathy with the people of Newfoundland if I were quite sure the delegates really represent the whole of the people of that colony, and especially the poorer classes. What I have heard of the hardships of the poor fishermen on the French coast leads me to believe that the poorer classes in Newfoundland are not those whose interests are represented by the delegates.
  MR. A. STAVELEY HILL: I ask permission to say a word or two by way of explanation. What I said was that in, the letter I read from Lord Knutsford it was stated that—
  "Her Majesty's Government have learned with much satisfaction that the Colonial Legislature have passed a Bill, a copy of which was received from you."
  The Newfoundlanders have never ob-
  1222
  jected to arbitration; but what they want is arbitration on all points.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: I think it is extremely unfortunate that the Bill has not been read a second time without debate. My hon. Friend (Mr. A. S. Hill) has spoken of inexperienced naval officers; being employed, and acting on their own initiative. As a matter of fact, it is a post captain of considerable standing whose name has been introduced, and who was occupied on the French coast—Sir B. Walker, an officer very much distinguished for the ability and courtesy with which he has endeavoured to do his duty. The employment of naval officers on those duties is no new thing, yet from the remarks of my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Derby the House may think that suddenly naval officers have been employed to shut up lobster factories. I was myself employed on that coast in 1882, and I know that the naval officers in charge never acted except upon most explicit orders from home, probably on the orders of the then Solicitor General (Mr. A. S. Hill), and they endeavoured to carry out their duty to the best of their ability. I believe it has been universally admitted that for the last 40 years the naval officers upon the Newfoundland coast who have had those disagreeable duties to perform have discharged them with discretion.
  MR. PICTON: The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy must not be accepted as representing opinion upon these Benches. His Indian experience, I am afraid, has unfitted him for understanding the sensitiveness of a self-governing colony. Sir, while I do not wish to go into the general question, there is one point that I cannot help raising. There now stands a Resolution passed at the beginning of this Sitting, that Sir William Whiteway be heard at the Bar of the House. We expected to have the advantage of the words of that gentleman, though of course that may not be necessary now. What I want to know is how the order that the delegates should be heard at the Bar can be set aside without the assent of the House being asked or given. It is no longer, a matter between the Government and the delegates, but between the House and the delegates. If this Bill is ultimately to be thrown into the

  1223
  waste paper basket, why read it a second time? We ought to show a little fellow-feeling with the people of Newfoundland. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had not expressed a desire that the rejection of the Bill should not be moved, I should have made such a Motion; but I shall now act with deference to his wish, and simply more the adjournment of the Debate. I hope we may never hear any more of this Bill after the Debate is adjourned. Such a course would not mean exactly that the Bill has been rejected, but it will place it in suspense, and at the same time show tenderness and respect for the Representatives of the people of Newfoundland without causing inconvenience to anyone. I beg to move that the Debate be now adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Picton.)
  MR. MORTON: I desire to second that Motion. I wish that this House and the country should have an opportunity of understanding this matter. I appeal to the Government to do justice in this matter to our colonial brethren. I think we have a right to claim that, as a matter of good faith, the First Lord of the Treasury should agree to the Motion, or alternatively get rid of the Bill altogether. The right hon. Gentleman promised the House that the Bill should not be taken beyond the stage of First Reading if the Government and the delegates came to an understanding. The Government have now arranged with the Colonial Representatives, and the House has a right to ask that the Second Reading of this measure shall not be proceeded with. I call this a coercion Bill, and I object to all such measures, especially when they are absolutely unnecessary. If the Government had treated the Colonial authorities properly, if the Government had consulted them previous to the introduction of the Bill, terms might have been arranged long ago with respect to a temporary measure without raising so much feeling oh the question. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy stated that the Newfoundland people would be satisfied with nothing but the expulsion of the French.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Motion before the House is the adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. MORTON: I am sorry, Sir, to have transgressed the Rules. I did not intend to do so. I can only repeat now that the House is entitled to ask for the adjournment as a matter of good faith. There is indeed no occasion to pass the Bill now, because we have just been informed that it will not be wanted. I do not know whether I should be in order in saying anything with reference to the Colonial Office.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. MORTON: I will not transgress again, Sir. I hope the adjournment will be unanimously agreed to.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: There is one point to which I think sufficient attention has not been given, and it is strongly in favour of the Motion for Adjournment. If the Colonial Act has been passed through both Houses of the Colonial Legislature and its provisions are satisfactory to the Government, I cannot conceive any reason why this Bill should be proceeded with. To push it forward, under these circumstances, would be a very bad precedent. If, on the other hand, the provisions of the Colonial Act are not satisfactory, or should a hitch arise in the future conduct of negotiations between the Government and the delegates, I should like to know what possible opportunity the House will have, if it now reads the Bill a second time, of discussing the merits of the question, or of criticising the whole course of the Government policy on this vexed question. There ought to be some opportunity afforded in the future of doing both, and, therefore, I trust that the House will support the Motion for Adjournment.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: Either this Motion to read the Bill a second time is a matter of form or it embodies a principle to which we have the greatest aversion. In either case the House has a right to demand some explanation why the Bill is being pressed forward to a Second Reading. So far we have had none. It can hardly be supposed that the Newfoundland delegates ask that this Bill be read a second time, seeing

  1225
  that it embodies a proposal of which they have the greatest detestation.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not an argument for or against the adjournment.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I was merely advancing it with a view to bringing out reasons why the Debate should be adjourned. I think, unless this Motion is accepted, the question will not receive that fair consideration to which it is entitled.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have no desire to interpose in this Debate, but I had perhaps as well now state why the Government ask for the Second Reading of this Bill. In the first instance, it is because it is part of the agreement and understanding with the delegates themselves. Besides, the Government consider that they are bound to ask for the Second Reading of the Bill in order to obtain the sanction of Parliament to the principle of the measure arranged in the course of the negotiations which have proceeded with France. That is the view which the Government take of the obligations they have contracted with the Government of France, and also in order to show good faith with that Government. The right hon. Gentleman opposite asks whether there will be an opportunity at a future time of considering the principle of the Bill if the Second Reading is now taken. The 2nd clause of the Bill is practically the entire measure, and, therefore, if the Bill reaches Committee stage it can be discussed at that time in any circumstances. But there is another opportunity which the House will have if the Bill is read a second time. I hope that further proceeding with it will be rendered unnecessary; and on the Motion "That the Order be discharged," it will be in the power of the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members generally to review the course which the Government have pursued in these negotiations.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I cannot make an exception in favour of the right hon. Gentleman. This discussion must be strictly confined to the Motion for Adjournment. I may point out that a Second Reading Debate cannot take place on such a Motion as the right hon. Gentleman has referred to.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Of course, if the House desires to review the whole transaction, I shall feel bound to afford it an opportunity of doing so. All the Correspondence will be produced and laid on the Table. I may point out that the closing paragraph in a letter of Lord Salisbury to M. Waddington, dated March 11, 1891, is to the effect that it is equally understood that the Government reserve expressly the approval of the British Parliament for the permanent arrangements to be entered into. It is on that account that the Government ask the House to read the Bill a second time, and in order to comply with the diplomatic engagements entered into with the French Government. I do not know whether, by the indulgence of the House, I may be permitted to reply to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I can make no exception. The Debate must be strictly confined to the Motion for Adjournment, which might be withdrawn to enable the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the other questions raised.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope that, under the circumstances, the hon. Member will withdraw his Motion.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: It seems to me that what has just been stated shows the necessity of the Motion for the Adjournment. If the House parts with the Second Reading of the Bill to-day there will be no legitimate opportunity afforded for it to discuss the principle. It is a Bill which I confess I am prepared to oppose at every stage. It has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman that the Second Reading is taken now at the desire of the delegates. I am informed, on the contrary, that it is exactly the opposite. The delegates have agreed to the Second Reading I know, but under the pressure of the Government; and the statement, therefore, that the delegates wish the Bill to be read a second time is one which I believe I am justified in contradicting. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of obligations to France. What are they? To pass a farcical Second Reading of a Bill which is to be subsequently abandoned? There is no such obligation. The right hon. Gentleman read a passage from a Blue Book which contains the words "we reserve the approval of Parliament."

  1227
  That is a well-known phrase which occurs in every agreement.
  SIR C. DALRYMPLE: I wish to ask, Sir, whether the right hon. Gentleman is speaking to the Question of the Adjournment?
  MR. SPEAKER: An argument against the Second Reading is not an argument in favour of the Adjournment. The distinction is a narrow one, but it is an obvious one.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: As the First Lord of the Treasury relied mainly on the obligation to France, it is necessary to point out that that obligation is wholly unfounded.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not an argument in favour of the Adjournment, and I interfered with the First Lord of the Treasury on that point.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: With all due submission, your interference, I think, Sir, was not on the question of obligation to France, but on the question of the withdrawal of the Bill, when the right hon. Gentleman stated that when the Bill was withdrawn, the whole subject could be discussed, you pointed out that that was not so.
  MR. SPEAKER: I interfered on the sole ground that the discussion should be strictly limited to the Motion before the House.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Very well, Sir, I will content myself with saying that the argument as to the obligation to France is utterly worthless. I think that this Motion for Adjournment is most proper. It will remove the indignation of the colony, and the Government will be doing a graceful act in assenting to it. It will be equivalent to saying to the colony, "Having heard that you have done all that is necessary we will drop the further consideration of the measure." At any rate, let us have the satisfaction of knowing that we on this side of the House, at all events, have done nothing to embitter this quarrel, but have, as far as we could, protested against these harsh, high-handed, and peremptory proceedings. We wish to express to our old and loyal colony our sympathies for the position in which it is placed, and our disinclination to record on the Journals of this House a hostile and irritating proceeding.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I am glad
  1228
  to find right hon. Gentlemen on the front Opposition Bench interested in the colonies, as it seems to me to be a new turn in our history. I have read the Blue Book on the question before the House, and I do not entirely agree with Her Majesty's Government. I never listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby with greater pleasure, and I cordially endorse almost every word which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken. I also agree with the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicester, because the Bill is highly distasteful to me; and I think that the Motion for the Adjournment provides a happy way of getting out of the difficulty. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity of relieving the House from the necessity of passing the Bill. It is most inconvenient that we should be asked now to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill. It is a question on which the colonists feel deeply. They know how much they have suffered—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg your pardon, Sir, for wandering from the question before the House. I will only express my hope that the Government will avail itself of this opportunity of relieving us of the unpleasant duty of passing the Bill.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: I think the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester affords a way by which we can save the dignity of the House, and yet escape from a very difficult position. The right hon. Gentleman says we are under an implied obligation to France. I say it would be an insult to the French people to pass the Bill pro formâ in face of the right hon. Gentleman's declaration that it will not be further proceeded with. Hon. Members opposite have been professing for many years that they are the guardians of our colonies, and yet they are now willing to be parties to the formal reading of a Bill which is both distasteful and obnoxious to one of those colonies. I think the House would be well advised if it accepted, without a Division, the Motion for the Adjournment.
  MR. BRYCE: I, too, cannot help hoping that the Government will take the opportunity of re-

  1229
  lieving the House from a disagreeable position. The passage of the Bill is idle and superfluous, seeing that the Colonial Legislature have already passed the necessary legislation. If the adjournment is agreed to, the matter will be left unsettled, but if the Bill is read a second time, not only will a slur be cast on the Colony of Newfoundland, but the sanction of the House will be given to the conduct of the Government, which has been needlessly severe on the colony, and an act will be done which will be deeply resented in all British Colonies. On that ground I hope that the Government will relieve the House from the disagreeable position in which it is placed. The Liberal Party have always been the guardians of self-government in the colonies and elsewhere, and on behalf of self-government the Liberal Party is bound to try to prevent the House from committing itself to an act which must have the worst possible results all over the colonies. If the adjournment is agreed to, and the arrangements with the colony fall through, the discussion can be raised again.
  MR. A. STAVELEY HILL: I wish to explain, with reference to the statement that the delegates desired that the Bill should be read a second time; it was only when the pistol was absolutely held to their heads by Lord Knutsford that they gave their consent to the Second Reading of the Bill. I have read what took place, and can assure right hon. Gentlemen that that is so. I hope that the Government will consent to the adjournment.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I do not think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken the proper course to induce the Government to assent to the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicester. Two or three speakers, one after the other, rose to say that it is by this Motion that an escape is offered to the House from an intolerable position, and they added that the course suggested is practically to dissent from a policy which has been the policy of Her Majesty's Government. They have made it almost impossible for the Government to assent to the adjournment. At the commencement of the proceedings we
  1230
  hoped that we had agreed with tie colony, and had arrived at a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. We hoped that all feeling might have been avoided which would prevent us from arriving at a peaceable settlement satisfactory to all sides. It was in that hope that the First Lord of the Treasury proposed the Motion, and we trusted that we might have shown a unanimous desire to bring the matter in dispute to an end as soon as possible. On the Colonial Vote, or on a direct Vote of Censure, right hon. Gentlemen opposite could have raised the whole question again if they wished to do so, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby made a speech which was an attack on the whole conduct of the Government in this case, and on an occasion when we thought that controversy might have been avoided. We have not attempted to reply at any length to his arguments, because at this time, when the colony is somewhat excited, we prefer not to defend our own course when such a defence can only be made at the present time at the expense of further irritating the colony. That is the wish of the Government at this moment. We deny that there has been the slightest wish to humiliate the colonists. We do not wish to enter upon such a defence of our own proceedings as can only be conducted by bringing recriminatory accusations against the colony. Under these circumstances we have been at a considerable disadvantage. The tone of hon. Members-opposite is this—"We must adjourn this Debate in order not to put on the Journals of the House a measure such as the Government proposes." That is practically a censure on a Bill, which we say is indispensable in the interests of this country and of Newfoundland itself.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: If there is a possibility of any misunderstanding I should be unwilling to be misunderstood; We do not desire the adjournment as a condemnation of the Bill, but simply mean to say that what has happened in the last 48 hours has made the Bill unnecessary.
  MR. PICTON: May I say that I had no idea of moving the adjournment in a hostile manner, but simply as a way of getting out of the difficulty?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I can only say that it has been put forward in this sense—that the House is to be relieved from "an intolerable position," and we heard of a "farcical Bill," and of the "harsh treatment of the colonies by the Government." We are most anxious that this matter should be treated in such a spirit that no irritation shall be caused among the colonists, but after the way in which it has been discussed, I think that it would be extremely difficult for us to withdraw from the position we have taken up. Let me add, in regard to France, that I understand the French have passed the Bill through both Chambers. Now, I am not sure of the effect which would be produced in Franco if they saw, after the speeches which have been made, the general tone taken by the opposition.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I rise to order. I was not allowed to refer to France, therefore I must object to the right hon. Gentleman doing so.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is out of order in referring to France.
  (6.5.) The House divided:—Ayes 122; Noes 195.—(Div. List, No. 253.)
  Original Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. F. H. EVANS: I noticed when it was stated that the delegates demurred to the Second Reading of the Bill the First Lord of the Treasury did not deny that that was the case. I can assure the House, having been present at the time, that there was nothing but constant pressure placed on the delegates to get them to consent to that course. During the whole of these negotiations, with which I have been myself a good deal connected, while I do not want to throw more blame upon the Colonial Office than is fairly attributable to them, I must say we have been kept continuously at arm's length. I have complained myself to the Colonial Office about the treatment of the delegates, I am largely interested in Newfoundland, and have been very anxious indeed to do everything I could to bring about a settlement of the question, which is causing much more irritation in the colonies than this House can possibly
  1232
  understand. Hon. Members, I dare say, saw a report in this morning's papers stating that the cords of the flagstaff in the Governor's grounds at St. John's were cut, so as to prevent the raising of the flag on the Queen's birthday. On one occasion the Governor himself was very nearly shipped away from the Island. Hon. Members may say that is a strong measure, but, knowing very well the feelings of the people there, I can say that the irritation, which has been growing year after year for the last eight or nine years, has now reached a culminating point, and I could myself go to Newfoundland and get four out of every five men, women, and children to sign themselves away, and to proclaim the independence of the Island. The cause of such feelings is very simple. The main industry of the Island is fishing, and in all the transactions that have occurred in reference to the Treaties with France the Newfoundlanders have been left in the lurch. In hardly a single instance have the Government backed up the islanders. For three or four weeks the delegates have been in this country negotiating with the Government, giving way on every point, and it is only when they come to the Bar of the House of Commons to plead their cause that they are told by means of an unexecuted and unsigned document that the Government will accede to their wishes. Surely nothing could be more irritating to the colonists than this, and the passionate state of feeling yesterday in St. John's was certainly worse than anything that has happened before. We are now asked to read the Bill a second time against the wishes of the delegates and against the wishes of the colonists. It is proposed to arbitrate with reference to one single question—that of the lobster fishery. I was in Paris during the latter part of last week, and had several interviews with the French Government. I told them what I will tell the House, namely, that if the arbitration lasts as long as most of these arbitrations do there will be no lobsters left when the award is given. A most serious question lies beneath the words "and the other subsidiary matters." Other subsidiary matters mean the whole Newfoundland question. It is to be regretted that in this House maps cannot be produced,

  1233
  because in a matter of this kind hon. Members are, so to speak, at sea, as they do not know the bearings of the different points. Newfoundland is a triangle; one side faces West, one East and one South. The West shore is the shore in question with the French, and the subsidiary matters mentioned in the Bill can only relate to the western shore. The southern shore, therefore, cannot be dealt with, but the great grievance of the Newfoundlanders relates to the southern shore. Off that shore the two French Islands, St. Pierre and Miquelon, have become great places for smuggling, and here the French fleet congregates before the fishery. They can only get their first catch on the bank by obtaining the bait on the South shore of Newfoundland. As a consequence, the Newfoundlanders can get the whip hand over the French by putting a stop to the export of the bait. Negotiations are at present being carried on with the French Government, and I hope they will lead to a re-arrangement whereby this matter may be settled, so that the merchants of each country may be placed upon a level. The Newfoundland people say if there is to be arbitration at all in these matters it should include the question of the southern shore, which affects the whole population of the Island. The French will not agree to this. Her Majesty's Government say, "We will read this Bill a second time," thus practically giving Newfoundland away for the second or third or fourth time in the history of the Island. Is it a matter for wonder that the Newfoundlanders get irritated when they are treated in this way? The details of this Bill give extraordinary powers to the Government—powers which will enable the Government by an Order in Council to pass over the head of the colony entirely to carry out any award of the arbitrators. How do we know that the arbitration may not result in some concession of land? Her Majesty's Government may even go so far as to promise bait for the French. The only chance the people of the colony have got would in that case be taken away from them. The people of Newfoundland live a life of great hardship under conditions which are not borne, so far as I know, by any other colonists in this Empire. They are the finest race of
  1234
  men I have seen, and I have been much about the world. Are these the men whom you want to force into antagonism with the Empire? Surely not. Why do you press forward a Bill, then, which is to take away from them the control of the only valuable element in their arrangements with America? The argument that applies to France applies to America. If you are going to have an arbitration which may take away from Newfoundland what is the very essence of its power, can you wonder that the people should ask you to stay your hands before further damage is done? I must vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am sure if hon. Members opposite understood the question as I do they would join with me rather than consent to oppress a people which is so worthy of their sympathy.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I should very much regret if anything had fallen from hon. Members which gave sufficient justification for the Government to refuse the adjournment of the Debate, and if there were any means by which discussion could be avoided I should only too heartily agree to avail myself of them. At the same time as the adjournment has been refused I feel obliged to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. No reason seems to me to have been given for forcing the measure forward. I protest against the manner in which the Colony of Newfoundland has been treated by the Government; I quite agree with all that has been said as to the colony being harshly treated. It would have been impossible to adopt such a high handed policy towards Australia or any of the other more powerful colonies. The language used towards Newfoundland has been most irritating, and unworthy of the Party which professes to safeguard the interests of the colonies. I do not wish to say anything calculated to increase the irritation; but we contend that the Government of France is being encouraged by the action of Her Majesty's Government to maintain impossible claims against Newfoundland. No doubt due regard must be had for our Treaty engagements with France, but the latter country is being enabled to pursue a high-handed policy in Newfoundland totally incompatible with the

  1235
  prosperity of the colony. If the present state of affairs there is indefinitely prolonged, it will be matter for deep regret. France must understand that she must make some concessions in the interests of the development of the Island.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I hope that the House will not be forced to a Division. Hon. Members have had the opportunity of entering their protests, and I hope they will be satisfied, and not attempt to interfere with the friendly arrangement that has been come to. I strongly deprecate the language used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. He says he is not opposed to the Bill, and, at the same time, declares it to be unnecessary and wanton. I do not approve of all that has taken place in regard to the negotiations with Newfoundland, but the delegates are now in cordial agreement with the Imperial Government, and I hope this House will fall in with the arrangement that has been come to. Having arrived at the point when the discord has been happily settled, I think the House should do nothing to upset the arrangement. The colony of Newfoundland itself desires that the opinion of Parliament should be expressed on this matter, and, in agreeing to the Second Reading of this Bill, this House will merely show that it recognises, like the House of Lords, our duty of carrying out the Imperial obligations of the country. This Bill, by its provisions, contemplates a future permanent settlement of this question, and I earnestly trust that, by means of arbitration or otherwise, this unfortunate Newfoundland difficulty will before long be brought to an end for ever.
  MR. W. A. MCARTHUR: It is difficult to refrain from wishing to express an opinion on this question. I have no connection with Newfoundland or any interest in it, but I would point out that this is a matter that affects not Newfoundland alone, but the interests of our other self-governing colonies. I appeal to the Government even at this, the eleventh hour, not to press this Motion. They have shown that they are backed up by a large majority, and they can enforce anything they like, and they can, therefore, afford to be generous, and settle the
  1236
  difficulty by adjourning the Debate. I certainly do not approach this or any other colonial question in any Party spirit, but I cannot support such a Bill as this. It is absolutely idle to talk of our not dividing against the Bill. Anybody who has any sympathy with our colonies which enjoy free institutions must divide against such a Bill as this. I hope, therefore, that even at the last moment the Government will agree to adjourn the subject. Newfoundland has certainly been treated in a harsh manner. It is part of the Empire, and is entitled to the favourable consideration of the Imperial Parliament. What course would the Government have pursued if this had been a question affecting an English county? Would Parliament force upon the County of Kent legislation which is unnecessary, and which is intended to compel Kent to do what it was of its own free will doing? Certainly, from the point of view of those who desire to see Imperial Federation, this proposed legislation is a lamentable and disastrous mistake. If, instead of France and Newfoundland, the countries concerned in this matter had been Portugal and Australia, can any one suppose that the latter would have been subjected to a Coercion Bill of this kind in order that the susceptibilities of the Portuguese might not be hurt? The policy of the Government on this occasion will show the self-governing colonies that it is of no use to fall in with the views of the Imperial Parliament. It will teach them that when they have done everything which the English Government wishes them to do, they are still liable to be coerced at the hands of the Government and of this House. I regret that the Government do not feel able to agree to the compromise which I have suggested. I agree that it would be best to avoid strong language on this occasion, but I find it absolutely impossible, compromise being refused, to refrain from using language which is a little hard. I shall be compelled to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, and I hope that many other Members also will feel that were they to vote for the measure they would be supporting what really is an insult to a self-governing colony, and doing all they possibly can to break up the Empire of which they profess to be so proud.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I think that the language of the hon. Member who has just sat down was hardly in keeping with the conciliatory intentions with which he said his mind was full. The Government wish this Bill to pass the Second Reading, not, of course, for the purpose of irritating or offending the colony, but to insure that the arrangements come to between France and England shall be made watertight, and put beyond the chance of miscarriage. On March 11th there was signed the Agreement between England and France, which declared there should be arbitration for the purpose of removing the difficulties that had arisen with respect to Newfoundland; but by the terms of the Agreement the arbitration is not to be set on foot until the assent of the Imperial Parliament to the Agreement has been obtained. Similarly it was agreed that the approbation of the French Chambers was necessary, and a Bill has been introduced in France accepting the arbitration and the decision which the arbitrators may come to. The Government now, with the assent of the Newfoundland delegates, ask the House of Commons to read this Bill a second time. Up to the present this House has in no form given its approval to the arrangement of March 11th for arbitration; and the whole object which the Government have in view in asking that the Bill be read a second time is to obtain the approval of the House to that arrangement by which the unhappy international disputes that have arisen are referred to arbitration. That is recognised by the Newfoundland delegates as well as by Her Majesty's Government. Sir W. Whiteway, in his letter to the Colonial Office, which has been read, says—
  "Her Majesty's Government will withdraw the Bill now before the House of Commons after its Second Reading."
  MR. A. STAVELEY HILL: May I point out that the views expressed in that letter did not originate with Sir William Whiteway. They were not his in the first instance.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I feel sure that Sir W. Whiteway, whom some of us know and all respect, would be the last man to say that the agreement which he
  1238
  has made, and which stands recorded above his signature in the letter addressed to the Colonial Office, is an agreement which was not fully recognised by him.
  MR. A. STAVELEY HILL: Certainly.
  MR. MATTHEWS: But I must decline to discuss the motives of Sir W. White-way and the other delegates from Newfoundland. I should imagine that they have as good reason as this country or France to take care that this arbitration for the purpose of settling all disputed points in connection with the fishery should not miscarry. But that arbitration will lack its very foundation if we do not secure the approval, not merely of the British House of Lords, but of the House of Commons as well, to the arrangement upon which the arbitration is based. In the Second Reading of the Bill there will be no disrespect or slight to Newfoundland. I earnestly appeal to hon. Members not to be more Newfoundlandish than the Newfoundlanders themselves, not to insist upon what the delegates themselves have not insisted upon, and not to oppose what is surely a wise and proper provision, namely, that the approval, not merely of one House of Parliament, but of both Houses, shall be obtained before arbitration is proceeded with. I hold that to pass this Bill unanimously without a Division is the only proper and becoming course for the House of Commons to take.
  MR. ROBY: I only wish to refer to one short point. The Home Secretary says the assent of Parliament must be obtained before the arbitration can take place. That assent can only be given by Act of Parliament. The mere Second Reading of the Bill will not be sufficient; so that if the right hon. Gentleman's view is correct, the Bill cannot be dropped but must be carried into law. The Government will be able to give effect to Lord Salisbury's words, so far as the spirit and the meaning of them are concerned, without pressing us upon this side of the House, and, still more, and, in fact, what is the only important matter, without pressing upon the Colony of Newfoundland, the Second Reading of a Bill, which it is known to the Government as well as to all others, is viewed by them with the utmost dislike. Either you must pass this Bill into an Act, or

  1239
  it will be sufficient in some form of words to assure those who are concerned in the matter that the House of Commons will eventually be found ready to give effect to the Foreign Minister's declaration.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I greatly regret that the Government have not consented to the Adjournment of the Debate. I wish to treat the matter in a conciliatory spirit, and I think I can show reason why the matter should not be pressed to a Division at the present time. In the first place, it was distinctly understood that the Second Reading was not to be brought on until to-morrow. The delegates were to be heard at the Bar to-day, and then, if the Second Reading was deemed necessary, that was to be done to-morrow. We have not the requisite materials to enable us to decide the Second Reading. There is a great deal of correspondence which is not yet before Parliament, and we are not able to judge how far the delegates are right and how far the Government are right. At first the Government told us, "We are anxious to have this New foundlandBill"—the Coercion Bill, as it is called —"passed by the Newfoundland Parliament, and if they do not pass it then we shall read this Bill a second time, so that we shall be able to put this compulsion upon them." I think that was not an unreasonable position. But it is now shown that the Newfoundland Parliament have passed the Bill, and accordingly a new reason is discovered by the ingenuity of the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the reason is that there is an undertaking with the French Government that this Bill should be passed by both Houses. This reflects great credit on the well-known ingenuity of the Home Secretary; but the idea is more remarkable for its novelty than its soundness. Was it ever heard of in the House of Lords? Were we told there that the Bill must go down to the House of Commons and be there read a second time? Was it not, on the contrary, understood that if Newfoundland did what it was asked to do this Bill would not be pressed to a Second Reading in that House? That was clearly understood, and I think, under the circumstances, the only reasonable and fair course for the Go-
  1240
  vernment to adopt, is not to proceed further with the discussion of this Bill.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I certainly did not come here with the slightest intention of Opposing the Government in this matter. Up to now I have agreed with what the Government have done. I think that if Newfoundland refused to France the exercise of her Treaty rights then England ought not to be dragged into war in defence of the Newfoundlanders in taking that course. Therefore, I came to the House certainly with no intention of opposing the Government. But I am surprised at what the Government have done this evening. I should have thought that it would be better to agree to the Adjournment of the Debate. We have heard that the delgatates have been forced, by an ultimatum put before them by Lord Knutsford, into assenting to the Bill being read a second time. I think the Home Secretary admitted that. [Mr. MATTHEWS: No.] The only plea that has been put forward for the course the Government are pursuing is that they are obliged to get the Second Reading under their agreement with France. I think we might assure France without any species of penal enactment with regard to Newfoundland. By carrying the Second Reading we should not convert the Bill into an Act. Surely a Resolution passed by both Houses is quite as important as a Second Reading, the Newfoundlanders having passed the Bill that they are required to pass. I think the Government would act wisely in agreeing to the adjournment. The Home Secretary urges us to agree to the Second Reading unanimously, but we shall not agree to the Second Reading unanimously. I repeat that it would be better for the Government and for Newfoundland to adjourn the Bill than to carry the Second Reading by a Party Division.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: We are exceedingly anxious to avoid all inconvenience of the kind referred to by hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby used some strong language as to the course the Government have taken; but as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, if we were to recriminate in matters of this kind we should excite passions in New-

  1241
  foundland which we desire to have allayed, and which we hope we have allayed. I earnestly hope the House will accept the proposal of the Government in carrying out the agreement with the delegates themselves, and read the Bill a second time. The hon. Gentleman opposite objected that if the Bill was read a second time it ought to be pressed through all its stages. We are not of that opinion. We accept the Second Reading as a complete performance of the engagement we have made with France. We are responsible for the engagement now existing with France. I must now notice some observations which fell from hon. Gentleman as to coercion. There is no coercion in the measure of Her Majesty's Government. It must be remembered that Treaties exist with regard to Newfoundland; they are Imperial Treaties carrying with them. Imperial obligations, and they are binding upon the Government of Newfoundland as completely as they are binding upon us. They are not Treaties of our making, and when observations are made with regard to the naval officers on the Coast of Newfoundland, I must ask the House to do justice to services from which both Newfoundland and this country derive the greatest possible benefit. Every one who knows the services which our naval officers render will admit that they carry out the Instructions which are given them in the most satisfactory way, and that they always have a regard for the interests of the people which they are sent to protect. The officers on the Newfoundland Station have been selected by every Government, I believe without exception, with due regard to their discretion and their judgment. Their first object is to protect the fisheries of Newfoundland; they are there in the interest of Newfoundland and at the expense of this country. What disadvantage would it be to this country if the French were to encroach on Newfoundland? We should not suffer severely, but the inhabitants of Newfoundland would be the sufferers. It is in order that the French might not strain their Treaty rights that our naval officers are on the coast of Newfoundland. I hope this House will do justice to the judgment and discretion of our naval officers. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of "the intolerable position" of Newfoundland. I
  1242
  think the language the Government have held is sufficient to show that we have the greatest possible sympathy for the difficult position in which Newfoundland is placed, a position which is not the creation of herself or of us. No man living has defined the rights of the French on that coast, and every Government in this country has used all the means in their power for the alleviation of the intolerable position of Newfoundland. That is the desire of Her Majesty's Government, and that is the object of this arbitration. We do not desire in the slightest degree to trench on the liberties of self-governing colonies, or to make light of their sufferings or misfortunes. On the contrary, we desire to do everything in our power to alleviate them. I have now only to notice one or two remarks with regard to the Colonial Office. I can understand that certain gentlemen are not satisfied with the Colonial Office because they do not gain all that they desire at once. But speaking for myself and my colleagues, we believe that the Colonial Office has been animated with the most sincere desire to advance the interests of the colonists, and it was in the interest of the colony itself that the course which has been pursued should be taken. The hon. Member for Leith said that, Newfoundland having local government, we encouraged France to strain her rights under the Treaty. I deny that to be the case. With regard to the lobster fisheries, first and last, we deny that France has any right whatever to them. Language of the kind used by the hon. Member is most unfortunate. We are on good terms with France; we wish to remain on good terms with France. We believe the country desires it, but that is not inconsistent with maintaining the interest, not only of the colony, but of the Empire at large.
  MR. BRYCE: I do not propose to enter into any of the questions with which the right hon. Gentleman has just now dealt. But a new direction has been given to the Debate, and a new light cast upon our position, by the speech of the Home Secretary. I wish to say a few words to the House from the diplomatic point of view, and to suggest what I believe to be a better way out of the difficulty. Clauses requiring the approval of Parliament are

  1243
  daily inserted in diplomatic Agreements. They are put in to secure Parliamentary control, and to prevent the Executive from being charged with bad faith. That is almost the common form of Agreements, for the benefit of the party that makes the declaration, and not for the benefit of the other party. It is entirely out of the question that the Government of France should insist that the sanction of Parliament should be given to this Agreement. If that were inserted, it would enable us to escape from every Agreement if Parliament desired. It will be in the recollection of the House that questions were frequently asked about proceeding with the Bill, and the answers of the right hon. Gentleman were either that, unfortunately, it would be necessary to proceed with the Bill, or that he hoped it would not be necessary. The House understood the right hon. Gentleman to mean that the object was to pass an enactment to enforce the modus vivendi. But that is a question altogether between Her Majesty's Government and Newfoundland, and France has no right to say aye or no. The argument of the Home Secretary would go to prove that, even if an Agreement had been made with the Newfoundland Legislature, it would be equally necessary to pass the Bill. But if France is entitled to require the passing of the Bill, her claim would not be satisfied by merely passing the Second Reading. The approval of Parliament means carrying the Bill through its final stage. This is not a Bill to approve of an Agreement; it is a Bill to make certain changes in the law of Newfoundland. The right hon. Gentleman himself, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, said it would be possible to hear the delegates on the first clause in Committee. Clearly, therefore, the right Gentleman cannot suppose that the Second Reading is enough. We are not asked to pass the Bill as a declaration of Parliament, but only to enable the Government to complete a bargain with Newfoundland. I submit that, on diplomatic grounds, the necessity for the Second Reading of this Bill does not exist, and that we are left face to face with the fact that we are passing a Bill which will excite strong feelings of disapproval in many parts of the British Empire. We all recognise
  1244
  the extreme difficulty of these questions; but I venture to suggest that the object would be best attained by passing a Resolution of the House declaring its readiness to sustain the Government in carrying out its arrangements for the Arbitration and in the discharge of Treaty liabilities, while taking note of the fact that the Newfoundland Legislature has passed the Act required. I believe there are many men opposite who wish to avoid, as we do, giving offence to the colonists, and, therefore, it is in the interest of the House, as well as of the colony itself, that we should avoid passing the Second Reading of a Bill which will cause irritation and annoyance in Newfoundland. I, therefore, venture to embody these views in a Resolution, which I will move as an Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a satisfactory Act having now passed the Legislature of Newfoundland, this House, declaring its readiness to support the Government in taking all measures necessary for carrying out the Treaty obligations of this country, and the arrangements for Arbitration made with the Government of France in this matter, does not now proceed to the Second Reading of the Bill,"—(Mr. Bryce,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. TOMLINSON: As a question of order, I would ask whether the passing of the Resolution would not destroy the Bill?
  MR. SPEAKER: No, I think not. The Bill might be revived in given circumstances.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think that in a matter of extreme gravity as this is, a minute or two might be spared to consider a proposal which is made, as I believe, in the interests of peace on the part of the hon. Gentleman and those with whom he is acting, and without in the slightest degree seeking to tie the hands of the Government. The only part of the Amendment as to which I feel any difficulty is that it is a record of the fact that a satisfactory Act has now passed the Legislature of Newfoundland. I have no doubt an Act has passed, but we have no positive in-

  1245
  formation on that point. We have the assurance of the delegates that it has passed. I read a letter which was written yesterday, in which it was proposed to pass an Act of the kind. A letter has reached us to-day, in which it is said that a Bill has been passed; but I think hon. Gentlemen will understand that under these circumstances we are obliged to proceed, not with distrust of the delegates, but with some caution and common prudence. It is obvious that we must see the Act before we can part altogether with the Bill, and with the power which the House properly reserves to itself for dealing with the question.
  MR. A. STAVELEY HILL(interposing, producing a paper): This is a copy of the Act. One provision which was suggested only yesterday afternoon is now in the Act.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not at all questioning the assurances which have been given by the delegates, but the Government is responsible; and I think the fact that this information is by telegraph alone is sufficient to justify the exercise of common prudence and common care. Therefore, without implying any distrust of the delegates, I should suggest that the Resolution be amended as follows:—
  "That this House, having been informed that a satisfactory Act has been passed,"
  and so on. That, Sir, I understand, will leave the matter in this position—that if we find it necessary to ask the House to consider the Bill on a future day this Session, we shall have full liberty to do so.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is so.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It would, perhaps, be more satisfactory further if we substituted for the concluding part of the Amendment the words "adjourn the Debate." ["Hear, hear!"] That being assented to, I have now to say, on the part of the Government, that we accept readily and cordially the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, which in our judgment leaves us with the authority necessary to enable us to proceed with the Arbitration at once, because any delay in regard to the Arbitration would be a serious matter. I therefore, on the part of the Government, accept the Amendment as amended.
  MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order, the adjournment of the Debate is never, as a matter of form, given with a motive.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I accept the suggestion.
  MR. BRYCE: I accept the alterations of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. SPEAKERthen put the Amendment as follows:—
  "To add to the end of the question that this House, having been informed that a satisfactory Act has now passed the Legislature of Newfoundland, and declaring its readiness to support the Government in taking all measures necessary for carrying out the Treaty obligations of this country and the arrangements made with the Government of France, does not now proceed to the Second Reading of this Bill."
  Question put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  Resolved, "That this House, having been informed that a satisfactory Act has now passed the Legislature of Newfoundland, and declaring its readiness to support the Government in taking all measures necessary for carrying out the Treaty obligations of this country, and the arrangements for Arbitration made with the Government of France in this matter, does not now proceed to the Second Reading of the Bill."

  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL. (No. 315.)

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order read for consideration of Bill as amended.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): We propose to take this to-morrow.
    MR. TOMLINSON: Do the Government really propose to proceed with this Bill to-morrow? I ask, because it is a matter of great importance to many Members to know when it is to come on. Those who were expecting that it would be taken to-day will wish for sufficient notice of the actual day for taking it.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I gave an assurance to hon. Members on this point two or three hours ago. The Bill will not be taken till to-morrow.
    Consideration deferred till to-morrow.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS VII.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for expenditure upon certain public works, and for improved communications, within the Highlands and Islands of Scotland."
    MR. CALDWELL: I had hoped that on this Vote the Government would have explained a little more fully than they have done hitherto their policy as to these works, as this is not a question which should he dealt with piece-meal. It should not be looked upon as a question of the profit or advantage of a number of individuals, but as one of advancement of works for the benefit of a large portion of the United Kingdom, of the amelioration of the condition of the people living in the congested districts of Scotland, and of permanently improving the resources of the country. Viewing the matter in that light the first point I would ask the Government to consider is whether it is of advantage to the country to retain the people in the Highlands and Islands? On that point I would go over very briefly the advantages to be secured by maintaining these Island homes. In the first place there is the Army to be considered. Everyone will admit the importance of the Islands as a recruiting ground. You find in those parts of Scotland where the Highlands have become depopulated that there is a scarcity of recruits, and the stature of the men has become considerably lowered. As to the Western Islands they contribute largely to the Naval Reserve, and you actually have an application from the Island of Lewis for the establishment of a training ship there. Then, again, you find that four-fifths of the Police Force of Glasgow come from the Western Highlands and Islands, and you find that these men are not to be excelled in any other part of the United Kingdom for physique and stature. Therefore, as a recruiting ground the Highlands and Islands are of immense importance. Then you find that these districts supply a large amount
    1248
    of skilled and unskilled labour to the industrial centres of Scotland and elsewhere, and that they supply a large proportion of the servant girls to Glasgow and to the large towns. I venture to say that there are more domestic servants coming from there than from any portion of Scotland. In the Eastern portion of the country also, the Highlands and Islands supply a large proportion of the factory hands. But in the case of domestic servants, the supply is getting short—the demand is greater than the supply. I think, therefore, that it is to our interest to preserve these Highland and Island homes. The crofters do not remain at home all the year round. Some of them go fishing on the East coast, others go to the large towns, whilst others devote themselves to the making of railways, for which they are particularly adapted. We find, on inquiring into these matters, that the men employed on the railways live on the lowest possible allowance, and send home large sums through the Post Office. They live at home in comparative poverty — I do not say this for the sake of making them appear objects of charity—and are largely supported by the savings of their children, who go out as domestic servants. I mention these facts as showing the importance of the crofting districts, as a matter associated with the well-being of the country at large, and as against the policy which some hon. Members would pursue, of emigrating these men from the Highlands and Islands, and the policy which prevailed before the passing of the Crofters' Act. We find that the crofts are only in a condition of cultivation through the energy of the crofters, and that the policy of the landlords has been to get rid of them wherever it was possible—a policy for which, from a certain point of view, we cannot blame the landlords. The poor rates and the School Board rates are exceedingly high in these districts, and if the landlords can get rid of the crofter element and convert the crofts into sheep farms, they will get rid of a permanent burden. One of the objections to deer forests is that their effects on railways are prejudicial, and that they practically prevent any railway being profitable that passes through them. Where there were formerly villages and farms there are now nothing but deer, with occasionally the lease-

    1249
    holders and their friends living there. In dealing with this matter, I do not advocate that the Government should give charity to the crofters; but I am in favour of their developing the resources of the country not for the present merely, but for all future time. It is not charity to individuals to increase postal and telegraphic facilities, and the people pay as much as anyone else. And so with harbours. The people do not ask that harbours should be provided for them free, but if harbours are provided on the West Coast in the same way as on the East Coast the fishermen are prepared to pay a tax upon each boat that enters them. Nor do the people ask for railways free. They are quite ready to pay 1d. a mile and the usual charge for goods. All they ask is that, considering the particular circumstances of the Highlands and the inability of the people to provide these things for themselves, they shall be provided by the State. Experience has shown that the provision of railways and postal facilities will tend to develop the Highlands. Nothing so developed the Highlands half a century ago as the making of the Highland roads. The Government paid half the cost of those roads, and the landowners paid the other half. A large contribution was made by the Government towards the maintenance of the roads until about 20 years ago, when it was felt that such an improvement had taken place that all charge on the Exchequer for maintenance could be removed. If we look at a map of Ireland we find in the congested districts an absence of railway facilities similar to that which exists in the Highlands. Railways are as much necessary now as roads were when the Highland roads were made. As regards the fishing industry, I would point out that around the Island of Lewis and the Island of Skye you have the best fishing ground in the United Kingdom. What is required there is that there should be a certain amount of harbour accommodation and also a certain amount of shelter. Hitherto crofters have combined their crofting with fishing, and it certainly would be of great advantage that fishing should be cultivated as an industry apart altogether from the croft, the croft being a minor means of labour whereby the crofter keeping a cow
    1250
    should produce milk and butter and keep poultry, &c., for the use of his family. Therefore the proposals of the Government, so far as they go, to extend and enlarge the harbour at Ness, to construct a harbour or landing stage at Carloway and at Portraguran, would be quite sufficient to meet immediate wants, for it is better to have good harbours where the fishing industry is concentrated than to have a number of small harbours here and there. The Atlantic storms are severe on this coast, and in addition to these harbours you should have a certain number of boat shelters, which, as the Commission have shown, could be provided at a cheap cost, and these shelters would enable boats of large size for deep sea fishing to ride at anchor sheltered from these storms when they come in. The difference between the West coast and East coast fishing is that on the West coast there are no harbours or shelters, and the crofters when they come in from fishing must haul up their boats on shore; and when they put out again they must stand knee-deep in the water and put in their ballast, and in stormy weather it is as impossible to get the boats off, as it is to bring the fish in, without the greatest danger of the boats being knocked to pieces. It is said sometimes you may find the East coast fishermen fishing off the West coast, while the West coast boats are on shore. Quite so. But the East coast fisherman has a big boat and a harbour where he can anchor it, and so he can prosecute his industry, while his less fortunate brother on the West coast cannot get off shore. This is one of the first conditions in order to develop the fishing on the West coast—which is the best in the United Kingdom—the provision of suitable harbour accommodation. I think the Government are alive to the advantage of harbours. I could not venture to ask them to enlarge their area for harbours, but in the meantime boat shelters to the construction of which the people would contribute a considerable portion of the labour could be provided, in the opinion of the Commissioners, for from £500 to £1,000; and in the leading centres of the fishing industry I think these might be constructed. Here, however, I must part company with the Government proposals.

    1251
    The proposals of the Government which I admit are founded on the recommendations of the Commission. Assuming the fish are brought into harbour, the next step is to get the fish to market as speedily as possible. The proposal of the Government is that these harbours shall be connected with Stornoway by steamers going round the Island, and here local opinion is entirely at variance with the Government proposal, and those who know the nature of the sea there know it is an impossible plan. Take the best steamer you have there that plies between Strome Ferry and Stornoway; why it is a mere tab on the water and often unable to contend with the waves. It was all very well for the Commissioners to visit the Western Islands at a season of the year suitable for yachting, and in fine weather on board the Admiralty yacht Enchantress nothing seemed more pleasant and suitable to them than communication between different points of the coast by sea; but if they had had my experience of crossing from Strome Ferry to Stornoway with the sea breaking over the deck and passengers having to be battened down, I do not think they would have recommended this steamer communication round the Island, No steamer could keep up such a means of communication without a great sacrifice of time, and the delay would be such in some weather that the fish would be unfit for market before it could be delivered. Through disregarding local opinion the expenditure at Ness was rendered useless because, as was pointed out, the harbour silted up, then a second expenditure was incurred there, and now further expenditure was proposed. Local opinion is now unanimous in favour of connecting the harbours at Ness and Carloway with Stornoway by means of a light railway. The distance from Ness to Stornoway is about 25 miles, and from Carloway to Stornoway about the same distance, and by means of such a railway either of these would be within a couple of hours communication with Stornoway and the South. The fishing industry would greatly benefit by this, and so would the intermediate agricultural district; the line would traverse between the points I mention, and eggs, butter, poultry, cattle, and all the dairy produce of the Island would
    1252
    have a ready means of transit to market. The expense of such a light railway may be estimated at £3,000 a mile, or £150,000, and that at 2¾ per cent. means £4,000 a year. Then take the Island of Skye, a similar distance would have to be traversed connecting Glen-dale and Uig with Portree, the headquarters of the Mail Packet Service. And so for an expenditure of £300,000, or at a cost of £8,000 a year, you have a speedy means of communication between the harbours and the mainland. The proposal here is that a sum of £10,500 a year shall be devoted to a subsidy for steamer communication, but the means of communication I suggest would serve practically the whole of the Islands at a less cost. We know what a railway will cost, but the capital sunk in harbour works must always be an uncertain amount. Local opinion is unanimous that as a means of speedily conveying an unexpectedly large catch of fish to market the steamboat will be useless. Nor had the Commissioners any strong opinion that the steamer communication would meet the requirements; they took the view that it might be tried, and if it did not do then the steamer might be withdrawn and matters left as they are. But there is no doubt the steamer will not answer the purpose, and why then go through the pretence of making this connection? Simply, you are undertaking expenditure upon harbours without providing the means of sending fish from thence to the leading centres of the Islands and the southern markets. As the boatmen are willing to contribute a reasonable amount towards the cost of the boat shelters, so the population would contribute towards the original cost of the railway. Then the last point I mention is the mainland communication. The theory is, I presume, that by communication with Stornoway and Portree, the whole produce of the Islands of Lewis and Skye would be spread through the district, and there are proposals for opening up the means of communication on the mainland. It happens that, because of the geological formation, it is not possible to run a line along the West coast, as has been done on the East coast, and you can only make railway communication from the centre of Scotland to points on the West coast here

    1253
    and there. Now, there are two schemes to consider—the Mallaig route and the Ullapool route. With regard to the Mallaig route, the railway is already made to Fort William, and thence must go North or West, and, accordingly, the Railway Company propose a terminus at Altbea, with communication with Ullapool and Kyleakin. Negotiations with the Highland Company have not been satisfactory, and the Mallaig route would be 110 miles nearer the Southern market for the Islands than any Highland Railway Company's station. The traffic in itself would not pay, but I think if the Government would encourage competition between the Highland and the Great Northern Company, and the construction of a railway upon the basis of a third of the cost being met by the Government, a third by the Company, and a third by the landed proprietors, full benefit would be secured by the Islands of Skye and Lewis and the mainland districts. I may also mention the necessity for improving the postal communication with Uig. The proposal to spend £15,000 upon the road from Stornoway to Carloway is condemned by local opinion as absolutely useless, so far as it will affect the fishing industry. If the Government are prepared to spend £15,000 upon roads there are other districts where the outlay would be useful. But as a means of intercommunication this road will be useless; to convey fish from Carloway would be too expensive by this means, and horses cannot always be ready to convey an unexpectedly large take of fish. I hope the Government will look at these matters in the light of public policy for the development of the industry of these districts for all future time; and the improvements, whatever they may be, which are ultimately adopted for the purpose of developing the congested districts of Scotland, should not be carried out at the expense of Scotland alone, as has been suggested, but should be charged upon the Imperial Exchequer, as has been done in the case of Ireland. (8.29.)
    DR. MCDONALD: I have no intention of going over the extent of ground traversed by the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division, though there are many things
    1254
    that should have been considered and are not contemplated. We have been promised so many things in the Highlands by Liberal Unionist proposals that I am afraid there will be very considerable dissatisfaction when the boon to the Western Highlands is found to be so small, and I do not think any of my Colleagues will be as satisfied with the result of the influence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham as the Birmingham Post is. The value of the harbour accommodation is small when it is unaccompanied by the speedy means of sending fish to market. More fish may be landed and salted, but this is by no means so satisfactory a method of dealing with it as by sale in a fresh state. I must say in reference to the whole amount for the Highlands that we think the benefit will be very little, especially when dealing with points we shall come to later on. With regard to railway communication, I hope the Government will endeavour to give us the second line to the West coast; they should remember that, in dealing with the Highland Railway Company, they are dealing with a very hard customer, and the monopoly that Company enjoys has continually stood in the way of improved communication. I hear that the Highland Company have refused to work the projected line except at an exorbitant sum, and that the Great Northern have volunteered to do the work at a much smaller sum; and I also hear that influence is being brought to bear upon the Government to get them to go back to the Highland Company from the offer of the Great Northern. But I hope and trust the Government will fulfil their moral contract with the Great Northern. The improvement of the means of communication will give us the utmost benefit, and without this the harbour improvements will only be to the advantage of the villages near. There is one particular purpose for which I cannot understand why the Government are pressing money upon a locality—I mean the road from Carloway to Stornoway. I cannot understand why the Government are stubbornly insisting, against the advice of everybody in Lewis, on spending £15,000 in reconstructing a road which is good enough already for

    1255
    all purposes. It is true that there are hills; but if horses have to walk up a hill they can trot down it, and there is no use in reducing the gradients. The District Council protest they do not want the money for the purpose; but Government give them to understand that if they do not use it in this way they shall not have the money at all, and, of course, in the interest of the district, as it will provide a certain amount of employment, the money will not be absolutely refused, but they do not conceal the opinion that in any other sense the outlay will be wasted. It has been hinted that the Government intend to make a tramway on this road later on; but the First Lord of the Treasury, in answer to a question, said distinctly that it was not their intention to do so, and the gentleman in charge of the works, Colonel Malcolm, has also said he knows of no such intention. The Commissioners recommend that these proposals shall not be carried out without the consent of the County Councils or Harbour Authorities, and practically local agreement, but here local opinion is dead against the proposal, and yet the Government persist on the money being spent neither on piers and harbours, which would be useful, or in making roads in those parts of the island where there are absolutely none. There is one district in Lewis where there is not an inch of public road, and where the population of 2,000 persons make their way through moor and bog as best they can. I myself, when I went there, had to hire a special steamer from Stornoway as the only alternative to wading through the bogs. Many of the people there have never seen a road. Yet the Government stupidly insist upon spending £15,000 on an existing road in another part of the island, which is good enough for all purposes for which it is required. There is one other point to which I wish to draw attention, and that is, that the Government have failed to carry out the recommendation of the Commission, that there should be a training ship stationed at Stornoway. It is said by the Government that it is too far north; but I am told that there are 1,500 to 2,000 men ready to join the Naval Reserve who cannot be taken up in consequence of
    1256
    this want. There are no better men for the Service in the British Islands than in the Island of Lewis, hardy sailors, and in every way better men than you can get from towns. I hope the Government will re-consider this point in the interest of the Navy and of the Highlands.
    (9.18.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I have no intention of going into the general question of the policy of the Government on this Vote, nor do I know that the question of general policy arises, though I may say that if I and my friends had the disposal of the amount allocated we could devote it to much better purposes than are proposed here. But we desire to assist Her Majesty's Government to dispose of the grant to the best advantage. But I limit myself now to a consideration of the Government proposals, as they affect my own constituency, and I think it will be an ad vantage if Members deal with details with which they are best acquainted. First, in reference to steamer communication, I would draw attention to the maps published in the Commissioners' Report, with routes marked, and particularly to routes 5 and 6 referring to the coast of Sutherland. First, I wish to know whether it is intended to subsidise any steamers on the North and East Coasts of Sutherland. Secondly, with regard to piers and harbours. With regard to piers and harbours, I have little cause to complain. The Secretary for Scotland agreed to include within the scope of the inquiry on that subject the North Coast of Sutherland, and I gladly recognise the reasonable manner in which he met my representations. Three harbours on that coast are recommended. With regard to two of them, the Government agree to advance three-quarters of the cost, but only two-thirds for the third. The difference will only amount to £150 to £200; and I hope the Treasury will see their way to make up that small difference. Then, as to the construction and maintenance of these works, I would press upon the Government the necessity of providing that all the money advanced from the public

    1257
    Treasury should go directly to these works. I also have to complain that, so far as I know, more stringent conditions have been enacted with regard to Local Guarantees in Sutherlandshire than elsewhere. I do not see why that should be the case. Lastly, I have to complain that no information whatever has been afforded with regard to the construction of railways. I shall be glad to know what the Government proposals on that point are. It has been taken for granted that the lines of railway in any case will pass through Ross, but I do not know whether there is any justification for that assumption. I should have thought the most direct communication with Stornoway would be by Lochinvar; but I hope whatever means of communication are established sufficient guarantee will be taken that the expenditure is incurred so as to benefit the greatest number of people. Upon the points I have mentioned I should be glad to have specific information.
    MR. LYELL: As representing a constituency specially interested in the improvement of means of communication with the south, I may be allowed to ask for a little more information as to the manner in which this money is to be spent, than has yet been afforded. With regard to the way the money is to be spent I wish to point out that one of the greatest wants in Orkney and Shetland is sufficient means of lighting the coasts and harbours. The sum to be spent on this object is not nearly enough to effect the improvements that are earnestly required. I wish to know whether the sum of £1,000 devoted to this purpose is to be spent in arranging for the erection of the larger lighthouse works along the west coast, and particularly of Orkney and Shetland. The whole of that coast is absolutely unlighted at the present moment. I wish for more information as to how the lighting is to be carried out; and as to what extent the money is to be spent in furnishing harbour and leading lights. I believe the fishermen would be willing to pay a reasonable amount towards providing leading and harbour lights. The improvement of mail communication is on the
    1258
    point of being completed. This is an improvement which the Shetlanders have demanded most urgently, and it promises to be a means of developing the material resources of the islands, by providing them with a better outlet for their fish. I hope the Government will provide some assistance towards the further development of the roads in these islands. The education of the children is greatly retarded because of the defective state of the roads, which make attendance at school very difficult in foggy weather. With regard to the question of railways, my constituents are specially desirous that a railway should be made to Gillsbay in Caithness, believing it will afford a better means than exists at present of despatching their produce to the south, as well as ensure a much more regular departure and arrival of mails.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: I hope my friends representingcrofter counties will excuse my intervening with a word of warning to them, and a word of appeal to the Government on behalf of the east coast of Scotland. I must remind my friends in the Highlands that the County of Aberdeen has a larger number of crofters than any of the counties in the Highlands, and that on the east coast of Scotland there are a larger number of fishermen than there are in any individual county in the Highlands. And there is undoubtedly a growing feeling that whenever the people of the east coast are called upon out of their taxation to supply material assistance to the fishermen and crofters of the west, they are neglected themselves and allowed to provide everything out of their own means. There are many fishing communities on the east coast who very much want harbours for the development of the fishing industry, and I appeal to the Government whether year after year three-fourths or two-thirds of the cost—I do not grudge it; on the contrary, I am glad that these Highland counties are receiving assistance — but is this to go on without any assistance whatever being given to the East Coast? We have been assured by the Fishery Board that the case of the East Coast is necessitous, that the conditions under which the

    1259
    fishermen labour are hard, and they say they have no means at their disposal out of which to give assistance. The hon. Baronet (Sir H. Maxwell), I am sure, will not fail to represent this appeal on behalf of the East Coast to the Scotch Office. The hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Caldwell), who is acting as Commissioner for some one, says one of the things we require for national purposes throughout Scotland is a supply of soldiers. I should be very sorry if we kept up the Highlands of Scotland for that purpose, and I hope my county will not be reduced to the state of poverty which would make enlistment the only refuge for young men. What we want is the development of the industries in the Highlands, in order that more renumerative and more inviting employment may be provided for the young men. I am sure the Members for Banffshire and for Elgin will confirm me when I say there is a strong feeling of discontent all along the coast in regard to the way in which the fishermen there are treated in comparison with those in the Highlands. What they wish is that, if the development of the fishery industry is a national purpose— and I believe there is no purpose for which the funds of the State can be put with greater national advantage—if the Government consider it their duty to apply money to the development of harbours on the West Coast they should put the people on the East Coast in the same position, and especially where the people come forward and offer to contribute their share in the same way as the people in the west they also should be assisted to make harbours. The hon. Member (Mr. Caldwell) says the East Coast fishermen can fish to greater advantage, because they have larger boats, but these larger boats have to be built by the men out of their own means; and the proposal of the Government is to give the fishermen on the West Coast large boats to compete with the East Coast fishermen. These large boats fish from the larger harbours, but there are a great number of fishing towns on the East Coast where the men have not been able to build large boats. They have to fish from their own villages, and they require facilities by which they can carry on their in-
    1260
    dustry in ordinary weather. I do not wish to be supposed to be protesting against anything the Government are inclined to do for the development of the West Coast. I wish to reinforce the remarks of my hon. Friends that in any development of the railway system special attention shall be given to that competition which the Government must know is necessary, and I have noticed with some dissatisfaction that there has been an inclination to throw everything into the hands of one Railway Company for its own special purposes and for the development of its own dividends. I should be neglecting my duty were I not to warn the Government that the feeling on the East Coast is growing in volume, and will some day force itself upon the attention of the Government. They did not grudge the West Coast the benefits it is going to receive, but they require telegraphs and railways along the East Coast for the development of the fishing. They also require harbours for the safety of the fishermen. All we ask is that in applying public money some regard should be paid to fair play. If not, the people of the East Coast will rebel, and ask that they should receive some return for the contributions they make to the Imperial Exchequer, while pressing wants are neglected.
    A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H.MAXWELL,): I have to reply to some of the questions addressed to me during the progress of this Debate. I cannot help thinking that Scotch Debates, though they may not rival those of other nationalities in liveliness, at all events may be admitted to equal them in the thorough interest and local knowledge which is contributed by hon. Members in regard to their constituencies. It has been remarked that it might have been expected that the Vote would have been accompanied by some explanation of the various items, and of the methods by which the money is to be applied. I must ask hon. Members to remember the somewhat unfortunate circumstances in which we are placed in consequence of the Scotch Department being absolutely unrepresented in the House on the present occasion. We have the combined facts of the prevailing epidemic and the General Assembly now sitting in Scotland

    1261
    at work on this occasion, so that the Scotch Office is entirely unrepresented. I have not the honour of being in the slightest degree connected with that Office. I only represent the Treasury, which hon. Members are aware is sometimes greatly at issue with the other Departments. The hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow began with a general dissertation on the policy of grants made to the Highlands and the Islands. Into that question, under the circumstances to which I have just alluded, I can hardly be expected to enter fully. At the same time, although I am not a Highlander, I lay claim to be in sympathy towards that race, of which all Scotchmen are justly proud, namely, the Celts of the West of Scotland. The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire has spoken of the jealousy which not unnaturally exists between the East and the West of Scotland. That constitutes a main difficulty in devoting any public money to the promotion of industry in particular localities. Moreover, that jealousy is not restricted to the East and West.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: It is not jealousy, but simply a question of fair play.
    SIR H. MAXWELL: The hon. Gentleman, however, said that the discontent is growing in strength and importance in the East of Scotland, and will at no distant day force itself upon the attention of the Government. The hon. Member for St. Rollox asks for information as to the principles of the Government in regard to the money to be spent on railway communication, and expresses a hope that those who are charged with the consideration of the various schemes propounded will attach sufficient weight to the importance of competition between lines. That subject is under consideration, but no decision has yet been arrived at. But a small Committee, consisting of Major Hutchinson, of the Board of Trade, Rear Admiral Sir George Nares, and Mr. Tennant, the late manager of the North-Eastern Railway, has been appointed to advise the Government upon this subject. As regards subsidies to Steamship Companies for improved communication, the total expenditure is estimated at £10,500 per
    1262
    annum for a term of years, probably four or five. Of this about £7,500 will be spent upon the West Coast, and £3,000 on the improvement of the Shetland service. Four new or improved services are already at work on the West Coast under a temporary arrangement, which will expire on or before 30th September, 1892. With the experience then gained the whole question will be re-considered, and it is hoped that tenders will be invited from the public for all the services which it may be considered desirable to maintain. The negotiations with regard to the Shetland service are not quite concluded, but it is hoped that they will result in the provision of two additional steamers per week each way in the summer, and one additional steamer in winter. The estimated expenditure for the current year on all these services is not expected to exceed £7,000. As regards grants in aid of public works, the expenditure already sanctioned amounts to £43,000. In addition to this, a certain sum (probably £15,000 or £20,000) may be required for minor works, such as small piers or boatslips; but no decision has yet been arrived at, as legislation will be necessary to enable County Councils or other Local Bodies to undertake the necessary liabilities for the construction and maintenance of the works. It is also possible that a further small grant may be required for similar works in Orkney and Shetland; and an offer of a sum of £2,500 has been made to the Trustees of Lerwick Harbour, subject to certain conditions. The grants for piers and harbours already sanctioned are—£16,500 for the harbour works at Ness, in the Island of Lewis; £2,000 for a harbour at Carloway, in the same island; £,8000 for a pier and breakwater at Gott Bay, in the Island of Tiree; £3,500 for a pier and breakwater at Talmin Bay, in Sutherland; £4,000 for a steamboat pier at Uig, in Skye; £3,000 for a boat harbour at Skerry, in Sutherland; £3,000 for a boat harbour at Portskerra in Sutherland; £3,000 for the extension of the harbour at Scrabster, in Caithness. It is not expected that more than £20,500 will be expended in the course of the present financial year. The expenditure contemplated for the present on light-

    1263
    houses and beacons is £4,500; but difficulties have arisen with regard to the maintenance of the lights, and the Government are not in a position to announce a definite decision. It is contemplated to spend about £3,000 on the west coast, and about £1,500 in Orkney and Shetland. The first cost of the telegraph extensions which have been sanctioned is £6,662; and the works have already been taken in hand by the Post Office. There will be one new line in the Island of Lewis, two on the west coast of the mainland, two in Skye, one on Orkney, and two in Shetland. An offer has been made to the Local Authority for the improvement of the road from Stornoway to Carloway in the Lews, so as to facilitate the transit of fish from the latter place to the southern markets; but it is not yet known whether the offer of the Government will be accepted. The expenditure on all the above (except piers and harbours) during the current year is expected to be about £20,000. As regards the grants in aid of railways, it has not been possible to arrive at any final conclusion; but the Government have appointed a small Committee consisting of Major General Hutchinson, R.E., C.B., of the Board of Trade, Rear Admiral Sir G. S. Nares, K.C.B., and Mr. Henry Tennant, late general manager of the North Eastern Railway Company, to advise them further on this subject. It is hoped that their Report will be received in time to make a proposal to Parliament in the course of this Session. As to administration, with a view of ensuring that the funds contributed by the Government to the above works shall be efficiently and properly expended, Colonel Malcolm, R.E., C.B., has been appointed, with a suitable staff of assistants, to superintend the works and report from time to time on the progress made with them. The expenses under this head are estimated at £2,500. The new steamer services in the West Highlands include (a) acceleration of present service between Strome Ferry and Stornoway; (b) daily service Oban to Castlebay and Lochmaddy, calling in Skye; (c) daily service round Mull, calling at Coll and Tiree four days a week; (d) Portree to Dunvegan and Lochmaddy three days a week.
    DR. CLARK: I have been waiting for some information before speaking upon this Estimate; but after hearing the hon. Baronet, I must confess that I do not even yet fully understand the policy of Her Majesty's Government There have been several kinds of policy in relation to this question. There was the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who was the author of a plan for developing the resources of the Western Highlands under a Unionist Government, so that they might get some support from the people of that part of the Kingdom. Then we had the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Caldwell) sent there as a sort of non-official Commissioner, and he made a Report to the head of his own Party. After this we had the Secretary for Scotland proceeding through the district, and he, like the hon. Member for St. Rollox, promised the people all manner of things on behalf of the Unionist cause. Then we had the Commission appointed by the Government, and composed of a body of individuals who knew nothing at all about the Western Highlands, and from them we have had two Reports; and, following on these, we have had the Civil Service Supplementary Estimate, by which the House is called on to vote a sum of £50,000 for the benefit of the people of that district. I should suppose that the cost incurred by these Commissions and others seeking information on this subject, if we could ascertain the amount, would be found to be equal to the amount we are asked to vote. If the Government were proposing to give the County Councils power to spend the money, they would be doing something that might really benefit the Western Highlands; but, as it is, the only result that I can see is that the mountain has been in labour and has brought forth a ridiculous mouse. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox did obtain some information, and did try to apply it in a useful way, while Lord Lothian also went among the people, and endeavoured to do the best he could under the circumstances. As to the Commission, the people were not at all satisfied with them, and the phrase by

    1265
    which that last Commission is known is that of the "Flippant Commission." They knew nothing at all about the Western Highlands; they did not appear to want to know; and their Report showed their utter ignorance of the question they were appointed to obtain information about. In fact, they went about treating the people in the most cavalier manner, and the result of this sort of blind leading the blind procedure is that the money expended on this Commission has been thrown away. There is, in the Report of this Commission, a lot of information such as we have had from other Commissions about the housing of the people. We know that in the Western Highlands and Islands any attempt on the part of the crofters to improve their houses is immediately followed by an increase of rent; not that the landlords do this; but the ground officers and factors are in the habit of taking advantage of any opportunity for screwing up the rents, the result being the rack-renting system, which has so long prevailed. I am glad to say that where the Crofters' Commission has been, an improvement is to be found, and the former oppressive rack-rents have been greatly reduced, the people now being able to do something for themselves; but the Commission says—
    "They were even more surprised at the reluctance of the people to help themselves than they were at the poor houses in which they lived."
    The Commissioners also draw a comparison between the condition of the thrifty, energetic East Coast fishermen, who have such splendid boats and fishing gear, and whose hardy nature and better craft enable them to go out where the western fishermen are afraid to show themselves. Now, I happen to know something of both these people. In Sutherland there are both West and East Coast fishermen, and there the West Coast men are quite equal to those of the East Coast. What I say is that where they are not so well favoured it is the past policy of the Government which has brought them to the condition they are in, and now the Government accuses them of having fallen. As to the Island of Lewis, we are told that it contains more people than
    1266
    the area inhabited can properly maintain, and that is one of the few statements of the Commission that I can thoroughly endorse. If the Commission had suggested that the deer forests should be given back to the people, that would have been a sensible suggestion; but they have only suggested that the extra population should be got rid of by emigration. Complaint has been made that the West Coast people are getting all the money; but, as far as my knowledge of the fishing grants is concerned, it is the East Coast people who have got all the money, and the West Coast people who really have the right to complain. I think that if proper inquiry had been made these foolish grants which the Government have adopted from the Commission would never have been proposed. There is a grant of £3,000 which we are asked to vote for my part of the country; and when we come to a proper analysis of the Vote, I shall move its reduction by that £3,000, because I consider it money thrown away. This is the only case in which the Government give £3,000 right away without any portion being subscribed from local sources.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): It was the recommendation of the Commission.
    DR. CLARK: I know it was; but they made no real inquiry into the matter, having only had one day in the neighbourhood of Thurso, and the result is that they have made a Report than which a more foolish one was never presented. In Thurso Bay and the Thurso River which runs into it, the Thurso people are endeavouring to establish such a harbour as may properly develop the resources of the district. The inhabitants have subscribed £4,000, and have borrowed £15,000 for this purpose, and yet the Government actually suggest that we should vote £3,000 for the renovation of the old pier at Scrabster, where there are no such facilities for harbour purposes as at Thurso. Then the Government propose to spend £16,500 for the harbour at Ness, on which already many thousands of pounds have been wasted, and there are other proposals with regard to which, on the Report stage of these Estimates, the

    1267
    Government have promised to consider an Amendment which I brought up as to conferring on the County Councils power to deal with these matters. The Government accept the principle of that Amendment, though they say it is not sufficiently explicit on certain points, and that they would prefer special legislation. In fact, more than two months ago they said the Lord Advocate was considering the point with a view to legislation; but although the Bill has not yet been prepared, the Government are asking us to vote this money. I hope, however, to hear something more from the Government about the proposed legislation, and I trust that the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Maxwell) will be able to afford the necessary information. If you are going to throw money away on this road I shall vote against it. I think the Government will be well advised if they act on the suggestions of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham as to the development of the resources of the Western Islands. But whatever they may do, I say that I look upon all these panaceas of the Government to solve the difficulties in the Western and Northern Highlands as utterly worthless. There can be but one satisfactory remedy, and that is to replace the people on the land from which their fathers were driven away. The Government are trying to prevent the solution of the land question in the only satisfactory manner, and whatever they may do in the way of migration or the development of local resources they will require to spend much more money than is at present contemplated. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and his friends have led the people to believe that something is to be done for them, and the outcome of all is a lame and halting proposal by the Government to vote a miserable sum of £50,000.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Having for a number of years taken an interest in the Highlands, I may be permitted, though not a Scotchman, to say a few words on the subject. It is always rather doubt ful wisdom to ascribe to people of whose mental processes one knows little
    1268
    motives of which we know still less, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that such a policy as I may have devised for the Highlands is not dictated by any desire to obtain support for this Government, because it was largely conceived in the time of the previous Government. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have an unselfish interest in these people, and am not actuated solely by political motives. The hon. Member said that the hon. Member for St. Rollox went as my emissary, or ambassador, to the Highlands. That is paying him a very poor compliment. The hon. Member for St. Rollox did not go to the Highlands as an ambassador or emissary of mine, but entirely from his own good will and interest in the subject. I fail entirely to understand the object of the speech just delivered, unless it is to convince the Government that it is quite unnecessary for them in the future to appoint Commissioners to inquire into the technical difficulties, to settle the financial problems involved, when they have all the information in the person of the hon. Member for Caithness. What is the state of things in the Highlands? We are dealing, not with an ordinary, but with an exceptional population, and that is my answer to the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire, who objects to the proposal to meet the exceptional distress in the Western Highlands because he says his constituents, with whom there is no-exceptional distress, would be discontented, and would even rise in practical rebellion against the Government if consideration were shown to their less fortunate neighbours in the West I do not think he could have seen the inference which would be drawn from his own statements, and I am perfectly certain that Scotchmen generally sufficiently appreciate the peculiar condition of the West Coast, and the crofter districts especially, to be quite willing that special consideration should be given to their case without making that special consideration the foundation for a demand which should extend to the whole of Scotland and the United Kingdom. The first attempt to deal with that peculiar condition was made in the time of the Government of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian by my

    1269
    right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Sir G. Trevelyan). The Bill of my right hon. Friend was a generous Bill, which went as far as the majority of the House of Commons was prepared to go at that time, but everybody will admit that it was a comparative failure. Practically the only thing the measure has done has been to reduce the rents of the crofters, and reduce them to an extraordinary extent—30, 40, and even 50 per cent. But then we are face to face with the eternal difficulty of small holdings. When we have to deal with holdings so small that a man cannot get a living out of them, the question of rent is a secondary question. If a man's rent is £2 a year, and it is reduced 50 per cent., the percentage indeed is enormous; but how is a man going to live out of 20s. a year who starves without it? What the Government for the first time is attempting to do is to carry out the policy which it has also attempted for the congested districts of Ireland, and to endeavour to secure the material improvement of the country by improving communications and by stimulating and increasing the facilities for different industries, so that the people shall not be wholly dependent upon the land, and that those who are dependent on the land may obtain better results. This is an experiment, no doubt, and the hon. Member for Caithness has spoken of the amount granted as only a miserable, paltry sum of £50,000 for the purpose. Admitting it is an experiment, can any one be so foolish, so mad, so unjust as to expect that the Government will take a larger sum from the taxation of the country until, at all events, they have had sufficient experience to say that the expenditure will be justifiable? If, as the hon. Member, out of the plenitude of his wisdom and knowledge, has said, this experiment is destined to be an utter and a complete failure, why, let us be thankful that only £50,000 will have been spent, and that the remainder of the large sum he would devote to the purpose will be available for some great scheme of his own in that future Government to which he is looking forward to carry it out. But the sum is not a miserable sum. It is sufficient for an experiment, and it is only because the proposal is an experi-
    1270
    ment that we are entitled to ask the Committee to assent to it at the present time. It is, however, an important experiment, and one which may have remarkable results. I do not believe that money was ever wasted in the making of roads. I believe the best expenditure ever made in the Highlands was that made upon roads. It is said that you must have tramways and railways as well as roads. Well, Rome was not built in a day. I admit that the scheme of the Government is not sufficiently extensive; but if the experience of the next few years justifies the experiment the Government has begun, I do not doubt for a moment that the House of Commons will be willing to vote further sums to pursue that policy. I wish to point out that we are in this matter striving in a new direction to deal with what has hitherto been an insoluble problem. We are bound, in my opinion, to go on trying experiments until we have solved the problem of this very exceptional poverty and distress. We ought not to treat those poor people as pariahs, or as hopelessly condemned by fate and circumstances to a continuance of the hard existence they have had to bear for many years past. I take a more sanguine view of this question than the hon. Member for Caithness, for I believe the experiment will be successful. It is possible that here and there mistakes may be made and some money wasted, but no Government is or can be infallible, or can be certain that in dealing with these local matters no mistake can be made. I believe, however, as I have already said, that in the long run this policy will be successful, and I desire to see a great extension of it. But I do not stop there. I would advise the crofters and those who represent them to be satisfied with finding that attention is being paid to their condition, and that an earnest, sincere, and intelligent endeavour is being made to remedy it. We should not press forward everything at the same time. I am prepared to admit that I do not think the present condition of the land question is altogether satisfactory, any more than it is in Ireland, even after three successive agrarian measures. In Ireland we are coming to the conclusion that the whole system of dual tenure is

    1271
    a mistake, and that the only way to a final settlement is to make the tenants owners of their land. I have a strong opinion that something of the kind will be found to be the case in the crofter districts of Scotland, and that something will have to be done to give, at all events, a certain number of the crofters a proprietary interest in the soil which they cultivate. Nor do I believe that it will be difficult. Of course, the chief difficulty is in the poverty of the people; but I believe there are some districts where the policy might be carried out—in the islands of Orkney and Shetland, for instance. I believe numbers of tenants and numbers of landlords will be found in those islands who will at once come to terms if anything like the offers that are being made to the tenants of Ireland under the Land Purchase Bill are made to them. If the policy is good for Ireland, why should it not be good for Scotland? I can see no difference in the two cases. I can understand that there may be some difficulty when we come to deal with large farmers, but we are dealing now with a class of tenants in Scotland who are of exactly the same class as the small tenants in Ireland. If I do not press the Government now to undertake this legislation, it is because I know, as a practical man, that their hands are full. I am grateful to the Government, if I may speak for the crofters, for having done so much, and I am not going to groan at them because they have not done all. They have done more in the matter than any previous Government, and I hope they, or some other Government, will do more in the future. After all, this is only the commencement of a great policy for the material improvement of these districts, and I hope that the experiment will meet with the success which it certainly deserves.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: It seems to me that we want more complete information from the Government as to their extraordinary management of the Business of this House, and as to the occasions upon which they take Supply. Nobody expected, for instance, that it would have been taken to-night. I am well aware that the Government can, if they
    1272
    think fit, vote away the money of the taxpayers of this country. I am not one of those who object to taking this £50,000 because it is a small sum. I would rather have that than nothing at all. We certainly are entitled to this miserable £50,000, but it is a very small sum compared with the untold millions which you are spending upon Ireland. We know that Ireland gets so much because the Irish Members make their voices heard so often. At the same time, I think, with the hon. Member for Caithness, that after all the Commission's inquiries and promises we have had, this is a paltry sum. Why should not a substantial sum of money be applied to a system of migration in Scotland as well as in Ireland? I differ from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in the desire to turn large numbers of small farmers in the Highlands and Islands into owners. One of the most crying evils that requires to be dealt with is that of tenure. I think it would be well to permit the construction of light railways in the Highlands. In Scotland there are only three points at which the railways touch the sea, and for the development of the fishing industry an extension of railway communication is urgently needed. If new railways are constructed, it would be a huge mistake to render them dependent upon the Highland Railway Company, for that railway is the worst of monopolists. I can only, in conclusion, express a very strong hope that whatever is done in this House, there will be no attempt to place the West coast in competition with the East coast.
    MR. DUFF: My right hon. Friend has dealt with the Report and recommendations of the Commissioners. I believe the total expenditure recommended in that Report to be incurred is £280,000, and, so far as I am concerned, I shall be very glad if any Government could have seen their way to carry out the recommendations of the Commission. To night, however, I propose to confine my remarks to this Vote of £50,000. It is proposed to spend £43,000 on piers and harbours. I think that my right hon. Friend opposite admitted that this expenditure was one

    1273
    very strongly recommended by the Commission. I wish to point out the desirability of constituting Local Authorities in Scotland, to whom may be entrusted the construction and maintenance of harbours. If you are going to carry out the recommendations of the Commission, and to provide money for the harbours, it is absolutely necessary that something should be done to constitute Harbour Authorities. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham I think was scarcely fair in what he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen. I did not understand the latter to complain of money being given to the West coast of Scotland. We do not complain of that at all. It is not fair to say that there is any jealousy between the people living on the West coast and these on the East coast; but what we do say is that if you are going to apply certain principles to the West coast, you must treat the East coast with equal fairness, and apply to the fisheries there exactly the same principles. The fact of the matter is that the money which is now to be given for harbours in Scotland is partially drawn from the fishermen on the East coast, and they think that if it is to be spent on the West coast it is rather too much to ask them to contribute funds for a purpose from which they themselves can derive no benefit. Yet that is exactly what you are now doing. There has been much distress on the East coast. The value of herrings has depreciated greatly during the last three or four years, indeed it is not incorrect to say that it is now only one-third what it was at one time. In consequence of the depressed condition of affairs many of the people in my own constituency have gone out to New Zealand, Nova Scotia, and to other parts of the world to try and find work there. We think that when so much is being done on the West coast some assistance might be given on the East coast. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may remember that a request was made to him last year, which I believe he at the time entertained somewhat favourably, that a certain sum of money should be given to the harbours on the East coast.
    DR. CLARK: As the Secretary to the Treasury cheered the state-
    1274
    ment of the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for West Birmingham that he did not understand the meaning of my speech, perhaps I may make the meaning clear. [Cries of "Oh!"] I am sorry some hon. Gentlemen opposite are ill. The meaning of my speech is this, that when you want information you ought to send out a Commission composed of individuals who know something about the matter to be investigated. This Commission was sent out to give you information and to make suggestions regarding roads, tramways, and railways. In this Report what have we got? The recommendation to spend £15,000 on one road, a road which is the best road in the Island, while there are large districts without roads at all. Can anything be more absurd than that? There is not a single scheme put before us for any tramway or railway. If you wanted to get information you ought to have sent men who would have given a little attention to the matter; you might have sent the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, or more especially the hon. Member for St. Rollox. The Report, in many ways, is absolutely valueless.
    COLONEL MALCOLM: Is the hon. Member aware that one of the members of the Commission, Sheriff M'Kechnie, is the son of a crofter?
    DR. CLARK: I believe he is an Iona man, a constituent of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He may have been the one man on the Committee who understood the subject. We are told the population is exceptional. Why are they exceptional? Simply because they have been driven off the land and compelled to live under conditions which make comfort impossible. We are acting now just as we acted when the last Government was in office. When the Crofters' Bill was in Committee, we moved to report Progress in order that the time of the House should not be wasted on the Bill, and we moved the rejection of the Bill on the Third Reading, because we considered the Bill would be absolutely useless to cure the great evil the people complained of. We told the House six and seven years ago as we tell you now that if you adopt the recommendation of the right hon.

    1275
    Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and make all these men peasant proprietors, giving them the land for nothing, and relieving them from the payment of taxes, you will not solve the problem. Until yon enable the men to acquire their holdings and give them additional land; until you engage in schemes of migration and emigration where necessary, you will not cure the great evil, the want of land. It is asked whether this scheme is to settle the question. Of course it is not. One good purpose has been served to-night. We have had a speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, the father of this policy. The supporters of the right hon. Gentleman have visited the districts concerned, and have declared that "we and the Unionist Government are your true friends; we are going to give yon harbours, tramways, and railways," but the speech of the right hon. Gentleman has pricked the bubble, and Unionist candidates will disappear from the places where they are now trying to obtain support under false pretences.
    DR. MACDONALD: I hope that the Government will not press the Vote tonight. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham told the House that by expending this £50,000 the Government will do more for the Highlands than any Government has done before. That comes from a man who was a Member of the Cabinet when the Crofters' Bill was passed. Why, he must know that in the shape of capitalised value of the reduction of rents the Crofters' Act put £1,000,000 of money into the pockets of the crofters.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I think the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell) has done good service by expressing dissatisfaction that in consequence of extraordinary and mysterious negotiations we have been landed suddenly into Scotch Supply. It is a mere fluke that Members from the Highlands of Scotland happen to be present on this occasion to take part in a Debate which so intimately concerns their constituents. The Irish Votes are always so arranged as to suit the convenience of Irish Members. I do not in the least complain of this,
    1276
    but it contrasts very strangely with the practice regarding Scotch Votes. I think the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire has done well in bringing forward the grievances of his constituents. There certainly is some distress in Aberdeenshire, and a large number of what may be termed crofters are deprived of the benefits of the Crofters' Act on the ground that they are not in the crofter district. I should like to see the area of the Act extended, if not to the whole of Scotland, at least to some other districts. Certainly the people in other parts of Scotland are looking wistfully, and hoping to share in the good things that are going. I hope my hon. Friend who has brought this question so often before the House will do so on some future occasion with success, and that my part of Scotland will derive some portion of those benefits which do not seem to have been received with so much favour in those districts to which they have been directed.
    MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I did not enter into the question of general policy when I last addressed the Committee, but now I should like to say a few words in regard to the bearing on that policy of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman set out by stating that there were exceptional people and exceptional circumstances in the Highlands. Do the exceptional circumstances date from 1886 or 1884? No, Sir, they originated in the beginning of the century when the people were cleared off the land and sent to the districts that are now called congested. It is idle for any Member of the House to suppose he can successfully tackle the difficulty in the Highlands unless he begins by reversing the policy of 1819 and 1820. There has been no more distress in the Highlands for the last three or four years than there has been at any time for the last 80 years. The right hon. Gentleman says that the boon conferred by this gift of £50,000 will be greater than that consequent on the passing of the Crofters' Act. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would go to any public meeting in the Highlands and make that statement. I am not con-

    1277
    cerned to defend the action of the Liberal Government, but to say that this gift of £50,000 is a boon equal to the passing of an Act which, besides giving them reductions of rent, gave them security of tenure, and enabled them for the first time to exercise the political privileges which belong to them as subjects of the Queen, is absurd. Over and over again we were promised amendment of the Act, and if a Liberal Government were in power the Act would be extended. I do not undervalue the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and it is the more valuable that he has been to the districts himself; but unless he recognises the position taken up by the Highland people, his recommendations are of no use, and have no chance of success. The second part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech contradicted the first part. In the first place, he said, and said truly, that the holdings of the people were not sufficient to pay rent, and yet the right hon. Gentleman went on to propose that the tenant occupiers should be made proprietors. But would not that stereotype and perpetuate the very condition of things we want to sweep away? We want are distribution of the people on the land.
    MR. CALDWELL: I am not concerned to say what the Liberal Government intended to do, but the proposals upon which the Government now proceed are essentially different. The land question was dealt with by the Crofters' Act, and so far as it went it was a boon to the people of the Highlands. The present Government are trying to benefit the people by new methods, founded on those the Chief Secretary is applying to Ireland for the development of the material resources of the country, the improvement of harbour accommodation, and the acceleration of the means of communication. But what we have to complain of is that, while the intentions of the Government are perfectly good, and while they gave their proposals mentioned in the Queen's Speech, yet, though we have this Vote now, there has been no declaration of the principle upon which the Government propose to proceed, or the scheme
    1278
    by which they propose to give effect to their intentions. We have a series of disjointed Votes here and there, but we are unable to see how these will act upon the general scheme of the Government. We are entitled, I think, to some information. The Representative of the Government present on this occasion has done the best he could, but he has told us that the Representatives of the Scotch Office, who may be supposed to know all these details, are absent in Scotland.
    SIR H. MAXWELL: I said my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate is ill, and that the Solicitor General for Scotland is required to attend the General Assembly in Edinburgh.
    MR. CALDWELL: I am sure we all sympathise with the Lord Advocate, but I am bound to say I do not see why the business of this House should be superseded by the affairs of the General Assembly in Edinburgh. But we know perfectly well that this has been a Cabinet matter, and the First Lord of the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have full cognizance of these matters. I do not suppose that the Solicitor General for Scotland has so much knowledge of the details as the hon. Baronet. The whole of this plan, we have been told, was conceived by Lord Lothian, the First Lord of the Treasury, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who of all Members of the Government is most likely to know the policy to be pursued, has listened to hardly a single speech during the discussion, and has given the Committee no information in this respect. That we have not been given such information leads me to doubt if the whole plan has been thought out. We have, as I have said, but a few disjointed proposals. You take a Vote of money to be spent under the direction and with the consent of County Councils in Scotland; but you know you cannot spend a penny of that money during the year, and. you must have the authority of an Act of Parliament before it can be spent. Of the £43,000 you ask for harbours, only £16,500 can be properly advanced to the Ness Harbour Trustees; but as regards the remainder, the County Councils have not yet the power to undertake the re-

    1279
    sponsibility proposed to be placed upon them. It is absurd that you should, under the pretence of doing so much for the Highlands, take a Vote for money which you know you cannot spend this year, or until you get statutory authority. There is nothing to be gained by passing the Vote, for no money can be spent on the fisheries during the present year. But that I wish to avoid the appearance of opposing the Government in regard to this particular Vote, and that I wish to facilitate in every possible way the policy enunciated of developing the resources of the Highlands, I would move to report Progress and defer this Vote until the Government have given us their plan.
    DR. CLARK: I beg to move a reduction on account of Subsection 2 of No. 3, the piers and harbours portion. I move the reduction of the Vote by £3,000, the proposed expenditure upon Scrabster Harbour. In what I may call the warrant for the appointment of the Commission, the Commission were told to indicate the districts where distress existed to an abnormal degree, and to find methods of remedying the evils, developing the resources of the district or otherwise. This will do nothing towards developing the natural resources, it will not help the fishermen or crofters, and as I object to money being voted under false pretences, I move the reduction.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £47,000 (being a reduction of £3,000 in respect of the Scrabster Harbour), be granted for the said Service."—(Dr. Clark.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): We have taken the earliest opportunity of putting our proposals before hon. Members; but I do not think we have been met in a fair spirit by hon. Members opposite. We have gone considerably out of our way to assist the crofter districts; we have made proposals which are novel proposals. We have made proposals for increasing and improving the means of communication; but I cannot say that hon. Members from Scotland have met us in the spirit we might have expected. I do not know whether the present
    1280
    Motion is made in earnest; but, assuming that it is, we have no desire to resist it, and accept the reduction.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know on what possible ground the right hon. Gentleman bases the complaint he has made against hon. Members from Scotland. Are we to accept on bended knees and without criticism all the proposals which the Government make?
    MR. GOSCHEN: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has heard the speeches which have been made this evening. Their general tenour has been one of great complaint; the composition of the Commission, the time they devoted to their work, and the whole attitude of the Government has been severely criticised throughout the Debate.
    MR. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: And we have a perfect right to criticise severely if we think proper. I have not been present during the whole discussion, nor, I think, has the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I have heard enough to be aware that the Scotch Members have been reasonably discussing these important proposals in a spirit which always has characterised, and I trust always will charactise, Scotch Members. We are not accustomed to receive money, even from the right hon. Gentle man, without looking at it before we receive it; we are anxious that money should not be misspent in our country. The Scotch people are a frugal people, and like to see a thing done in an economical way. I know nothing about Scrabster Harbour, but the hon. Member who represents the county says that the money will be misspent. [Cries of "Agreed!"] But we are qute willing that the money should be spent in other places, and in a proper way, to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to drive two horses in different directions. He cannot seek to have the political advantage in Scotland of having spent this money there, and at the same time thrust upon the people of a locality expenditure they do not wish to have. This, I understand, is the ground upon which my hon. Friend makes this Motion on a detail as to which I have no information, and am not,

    1281
    therefore, entited to detain the Committee. As to the general discussion, I altogether repudiate the blame which has been thrown upon Scotch Members by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I regret extremely that the right hon. Gentleman should have thought himself justified in doing so at the close of a Debate of this kind.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I have not blamed the Scotch Members, but I do regret the spirit in which they have met the Government when it was conferring boons upon the country, and had a right to expect that our proposal would be met in a very different spirit.
    MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to give us the information we have asked for?
    MR. GOSCHEN: I thought the information had been given, but the Government are anxious to go forward with the works, and we cannot commence without the sanction of Parliament. I therefore beg the House of Commons to pass this Vote. Every care will be taken in the expenditure of the money, and I earnestly hope that, with the exception of this sum of £3,000, the remaining sum will be voted, so that we may begin those works which are urgent.
    DR. CLARK: There are objections to Sub-sections 5 and 6.
    DR. MACDONALD: Earlier in the evening I put a question with reference to the expenditure of £15,000 on the road between Stornoway and Carloway, and I would ask again if it is the intention of the Government to insist upon this? I understood the hon. Baronet to say the Government had not quite made up their minds, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give me a more definite answer, and say whether there is any intention to construct a tramway line along the road.
    MR. LYELL: Will the right right hon. Gentleman cause inquiry to be made in reference to the piers and harbours at Thurso and St. John's Bay? Now that £3,000 is set free by the Scrabster scheme I hope he will reconsider other proposals by the Commissioners?
    MR. ESSLEMONT: I quite agree with the withdrawal of this amount of
    1282
    £3,000. The right hon. Gentleman was not present when claims on behalf of other harbours were urged, but I hope that now these claims will have re-consideration.
    MR. GOSCHEN: This incident in reference to the Motion of the hon. Member for Caithness will not modify in the slightest degree the desire of the Government to do what they can for the benefit of the Western Highlands and Islands, and we may consider the £3,000 set free possibly for future use. The road at Carloway will be improved if the Local Authority practically approve of the plan. If the Local Authority are opposed, we, shall not proceed with it; but careful calculations have been made with regard to it. It has been considered the road might be made more convenient for the conveyance of fish. Further inquiry will be made with regard to Thurso and other places. As we have consented to the withdrawal of the £3,000, I now ask that the remainder of the Vote be agreed to.
    DR. CLARK: I am quite satisfied that the County Council will represent how foolish the expenditure on the road will be. I take this opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman whether it is really necessary to have a new administration at a cost of £2,500?
    MR. GOSCHEN: We thought that an economical and speedy way of carrying out works would be by the appointment of an officer who should be the eye and representative of the Secretary of State in the localities; and so that time should not be lost by constant reference to head quarters, such an officer has been appointed.
    DR. CLARK: Colonel Malcolm?
    MR. GOSCHEN: Yes; Colonel Malcolm. Other assistance will also be required.
    DR. CLARK: I will not carry out my intention of moving reductions on Nos. 5 and 6, but will confine my Motion to the £3,000.
    DR. TANNER: I am not going to stand long between the Committee and a decision. I only wish to warn our Scotch friends that merely a protest and a promise in reply should not satisfy them. Probably they will find themselves, 12 months

    1283
    hence, compelled to do the same thing again. I hope, indeed, the appeal will then be made with better result to different occupants of the Treasury Bench, for I warn the Members from Scotland that they must not rely on a Chancellor of the Exchequer who would desert either side for place.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported to-morrow, at Two of the clock.
    Committee to sit again to-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.—(No. 297.)

    SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [26th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. ROBY: I desire to refer to the attempts made lately in different places to alter the usual interpretation of the words "charitable purposes," and to make grammar schools and other schools pay Income Tax. I represent particularly on this occasion the Grammar School of Manchester. For many years past we, like all other charitable foundations, have been in the habit of recovering the Income Tax every three years; but a year or two ago we were informed by the Commissioners that they must decline to return it to us, on the ground that there had been a recent decision in the case of the Moravians' establishment, which showed that the words "charitable purposes" were not to be interpreted in the way they had hitherto been interpreted. As to the legal aspect of the case I have nothing to say; a case was brought before the House of Lords in March, 1890, and the decision has not yet been given. The chances are that even when that decision has been given it will not cover our case. What I object to is this attempt to put pressure upon the Trustees of charitable foundations to hand over a sum of money to the Commissioners of Income Tax, which it was not in contemplation when the Income Tax was originally levied should be so handed over, and which is contrary, I
    1284
    believe, to the whole practice and purpose of the Income Tax Commissioners from 1842 until the last year. I think something may be said in favour of requiring charities to pay Income Tax; but, in my opinion, it is most unconstitutional to attack in this way these small bodies of Trustees and induce them to pay, out of their limited funds, Income Tax. All our funds are expended in charity. We have no money with which to carry on a lawsuit, still less for carrying on a lawsuit against the Government. Whether we won or lost the charity must be crippled for a very considerable time. The point I wish to urge most strongly is that if places like the Grammar School at Manchester are liable to Income Tax the matter should be set at rest by an Act. Now we have practically no choice but to submit to the demands made upon us. I protest against this mode of forcing a payment of Income Tax which I believe to be illegal, and am sure is unconstitutional.
    MR. MORTON: I think we have a right to complain that the Bill has been taken at this hour, especially after the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it should be taken about half-past 10 o'clock Three hours have been utterly wasted this evening over the Newfoundland Bill, and now, after midnight, we are expected to discuss the question of the whole taxation of the country. We had no opportunity on Tuesday last, because the whole of that day was occupied by Members on the Front Benches in a sort of duel in which, by the way, the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to get the worst of it. The right hon. Gentleman appears anxious to punish us for what happened on Tuesday by preventing us now from discussing the matter. I had wanted to speak on several topics, but I will reserve my observations to the Committee stage.
    MR. SPEAKER(interrupting): The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak. I see he has already spoken on the Main Question.
    MR. MORTON: I only moved the Adjournment.
    MR. SPEAKER: That is speaking on the Main Question.
    MR. TOMLINSON: In reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Roby), I would

    1285
    ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take into favourable consideration the position of charitable institutions in reference to the payment of Income Tax. The matter has been very much considered by the great charities, and in their interest received much attention from the late Lord Addington. These charities are in this difficult position: that they have in general no funds applicable to conducting legal proceedings, and it is also felt that whatever may be the ultimate decision in the Moravian case, it may not govern that of other Institutions, and they may still be liable to the risk of expensive litigation in order to preserve their rights.
    MR. SEXTON: I desire to ask a question as to the payment of Income Tax by tenants who purchase their holdings under the Ashbourne Acts. It seems to me that they ought to pay on the occupation value of the holding only. Under the Ashbourne Acts the landlord's interest become extinct, and the tenant becomes liable for 49 years.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): In regard to the last question, I should not like to give an answer off-hand. I will consider the point, and give the hon. Member a reply on a future occasion if he will communicate with me or put a question on the Paper. At present I have not been able to go into the question as deeply as I could wish. With reference to the question of the payment of Income Tax by the Trustees of charitable institutions, hon. Members will acknowledge that the best course will be to await, before adopting a final decision, the judgment of the House of Lords in the pending case of the Moravian schools. Even if that should not cover the whole of the legal ground, I should be guided, to a great extent, by the spirit of that decision in my future action. I should not wish to strain the law. It is contended that the principle adopted in dealing with this matter at present is unconstitutional, but the Inland Revenue Authorities consider that having once placed an interpretation on the law they are bound by it. I do not, however, wish to press their view of the matter unduly.
    MR. CONYBEARE: We ought not to allow the Government to take the Second Reading of the Bill without a word of protest against their general tactics with regard to this important subject. I presume that the Second Reading of the Budget Bill of the country should be something more than a mere farce, but the arrangements of the Government reduce it to that. They expected the Bill to be taken at the end of the afternoon Sitting on Tuesday, after having laughed over the jokes of the noble Lord the Member for Ipswich in reference to the adjournment for the Derby. Because the Debate did not terminate as they had expected they attempted to closure it—not having thought of the Closure in connection with the Motion of the noble Lord. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had the boldness to attempt to closure the Debate when it had not proceeded more than three hours. Failing in that, he can find no better opportunity for the Bill than to bring it on now after midnight, when hon. Members are fatigued by a long discussion on a very important matter, and are anxious to go home for the night. We are here to see that the true principles of finance—on which the right hon. Gentleman prides himself so much, but which he takes care to violate in almost every Budget he brings forward—are respected. When we wish, by way of protest, to emphasise the fact that the right hon. Gentleman cares nothing whatever for the principles of which he used to be so fond, we have a sort of title to be heard. [Cries of "Divide!"] I say we have a right to protest against the soundest principles of finance being constantly violated, and against being compelled to discuss such a Bill as this either at the fag-end of an afternoon Sitting or at an early hour in the morning. We have a right to object to this slip-shod and utterly reckless way of conducting the ordinary business of the country. [Cries of "Divide!"] The principal issue which, I take it, is raised in this Debate is that by forcing the Budget Bill through the Second Reading, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government desire to get the House of Commons committed to the principle that a large sum of

    1287
    money—which he pretends is a surplus, but which is nothing of the kind—shall be devoted to what some hon. Members opposite call "free education," and others call "assisted education." [Cries of "Divide!" and interruption.] It is perfectly notorious—and no one knows it better than the right hon. Gentleman—that there is great division in the country as to the method in which this so-called surplus is to be devoted to that special object, and I maintain that it is not enough for the Government to come down and say, "We will give yon this sum for the freeing of schools." [Renewed cries of "Divide!"] They should give us some explanation of the method by which they wish to carry out the scheme. [Interruption.] We want to know whether the voluntary schools are to be subject to popular control, and whether or not the grant is to go to all the standards of our elementary schools. [Cries of" Divide!"] In spite of the interruptions of hon. Members I shall claim my right to discuss the Budget proposals. I, for one, refuse to be compelled by this species of coercion to vote this sum which the Government say is to be devoted to a purpose which, though we may approve of it, we have every reason to believe will be worked out in an objectionable manner.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  SUPPLY [25th MAY] REPORT.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [26th May]—
  "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution 'That a further sum, not exceeding £4,208,100, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892."'
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. SEXTON: I trust the Postmaster General will find it convenient to make a statement as to the improvement of the cross-Channel Service to Ireland. An unreasonable time has elapsed in carrying out this improvement. A deputation from the companies waited upon the right hon.
  1288
  Gentleman, and it took him three months to make up his mind in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman communicated with the Treasury, and a further delay occurred whilst they were considering it; other delays followed, and in this way 12 months have elapsed without anything being done by the right hon. Gentleman to carry out his promise to effect an improvement. A year has been consumed in considering a matter which might well have been disposed of in a month or two. It is not fair that the City of Belfast and other important communities in Ireland should be left so long without a satisfactory postal service—such a service as would be given as a matter of course to any town in England. Such is the mail service from Belfast to England that the mails are delayed several hours, and the morning mail is not delivered until after the outward mail has been despatched. That is an absurd condition of things in connection with a town like Belfast—one of the most important cities in the United Kingdom. I hope it will not be necessary to return to this subject. I shall do so, however, if the right hon. Gentleman does not deal with it, and I shall be supported by the bulk of the Irish Representatives. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give us some particulars as to the negotiations that have taken place—for instance, what the companies have asked and what the Treasury has offered. In order to put the Motion in proper form before the House I will move to reduce the Vote by £5,000.
  Amendment proposed to the said Resolution, in line 2, to leave out "£4,208,100," and insert "£4,203,100."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  MR. MACARTNEY: This question is one of importance, not only to Belfast but to the whole of Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General is going to make a statement to-night I should like to make a few observations on the subject. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will understand that opinion is not so entirely unanimous in favour of the Larne and Stranraer route as the hon. Member for West Belfast seems to think; and, though I am quite prepared to approve of any proposal the Treasury may make as to

  1289
  an addition to the existing mail service to Belfast through Dublin, I say that if an additional grant is made it ought not to be at the expense of the Dublin and Holyhead route, and, moreover, if a grant is to be made to the Larne and Stranraer route while refusing any improvement in the Dublin and Holyhead route I shall strongly oppose it. The Larne and Stranraer route would give postal facilities only to one or two towns in Antrim; but it would not give a sorted service, and for a considerable distance it has only one line of rails. The Great Northern line is superior in all these respects, and is the natural route to the North of Ireland. The hon. Member for West Belfast was not quite correct in one of his statements. On no single occasion on which delay has occurred has the Larne and Stranraer train arrived in Belfast before the train which arrived by the Dublin route. With regard to Belfast, it appears to me that the Belfast requirements would be amply met by the offer of the improved service over the Great Northern route, and that, with regard to the whole of the rest of the North of Ireland, there is no doubt whatever that the advantages which would be secured to the other large manufacturing towns of the North of Ireland are incomparably superior by the present route than by any proposal that could be offered over the Larne and Stranraer route.
  MR. KNOX: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has told us that opinion is divided in the North of Ireland on the question of the proposed alternative route. Of course that cannot be denied, but we know that as far as the public opinion of Belfast has yet been expressed—and I take it from the ordinary channels of public opinion, such as the Belfast News Letter, the Northern Whig, the Morning News, and the Telegraph—public opinion is strongly in favour of the establishment of the proposed Larne and Stranraer route. We should like to see alternative routes; if possible we should be glad to see both supported by sufficient subsidies. I think I ought to question a statement made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Macartney) as to a matter of fact. I do not think it a fact that the whole of the way to Derry the Great Northern Railway is a double line.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I did not say the whole way to Derry.
  MR. KNOX: If I am mistaken I am sorry I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. On the other point, how ever, I may say that the general opinion in Belfast is that when we take into consideration the dangers of accident or delay in the best conducted sea route it is desirable that there should be an alternative service to prevent the loss which otherwise might occur to the commercial community when their letters are delayed. But beyond this, I may say that there are many who regard a third alternative which has been suggested, namely, the Greenore route, with much favour. It is undoubtedly the most direct route, and should be carefully considered.
  SIR E. HARLAND: I am sorry I cannot agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Macartney). I believe that the unanimous opinion in Belfast and the other important towns in the North of Ireland is that an alternative route would be most valuable, not only as a second route for letters, but as a new link added to the improved communication between Great Britain and Ireland. The distance between Larne and Stranraer across the Channel is only one-half the distance between Holyhead and Dublin.
  MR. SEXTON: Less than one-half.
  SIR E. HARLAND: Of course, if the mail route between Dublin and Holyhead were not highly subsidised, it would be impossible for the Steamboat Company to provide such splendid accommodation for passengers. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General has a good deal of power in regard to this matter, but even with the subsidy they get from the Government the company could not afford to cary mail bags alone. They must also have passengers, and the passengers must have certain inducements to take a particular route. If the Postmaster General thinks it would be of general advantage to assist in the establishment of the Stranraer and Larne route as an alternative one, I think there would be no movement on the part of the Government that would be more popular in the North of Ireland.
  COLONEL WARING: I wish to say a word or two in favour of an alternative route that has as yet hardly

  1291
  been mentioned. It is obvious that the shortest way between two places is a straight line; and those who have travelled to Ireland by the North Western Railway, and who have looked at the maps exhibited in the carriages, will have seen that the route to Belfast viâ Greenore, is as nearly as possible a straight line. In fact, a shorter one could not be devised. The distance may be accomplished in quite as short a time by that route as by any other, and the accommodation would not only be of benefit to Belfast but to the whole of the North of Ireland.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I think that what has been said to-night has shown that this question is not so easy a one as might at first appear on the surface. A great deal has been said in favour of the proposed route viâ Stranraer and Larne, and there is much to be said also for the counter-proposals which have been submitted to the Government by the Great Northern Railway of Ireland, and the geographically shortest route, that from Holyhead to Greenore. A considerable amount of public money is in question, and therefore it is incumbent on the Government to exercise the greatest care in order to arrive at the best possible solution. The proposal in regard to the Larne and Stranraer route was not placed before me until the end of last autumn, and it was necessary for the Post Office to consider it, and any counter-proposals that might be made. The latest hour within the last six months at which the mails arrived in Balfast was 12.35 on December 23; that was two and a half hours late. During the last six months (November to May) there have been nine occasions on which the day mail has missed the ordinary despatch from Dublin. This is not satisfactory, and the Government are considering three or four competing schemes for improving the service to Belfast. On the 20th December the mail came in at 10.35; on the 22nd at 10.37; on the 23rd at 12.35; on the 24th at 12.24; on the 7th January at 10.45; on the 8th at 10.35; on the 15th at 10.40; and on the 31st January at 11.40; so that even on the worst occasions there was an interval of four hours between the arrival of the mail
  1292
  and the despatch of the next mail to England. In seeking the remedy, however, it is necessary to take care that the improvement is not effected at the cost of the service to other important towns in the North of Ireland. The Government wish to submit a complete scheme to Parliament, and this cannot be done until the answer from the Railway Companies to which I have referred is received. I quite sympathise with the position taken by the hon. Member for West Belfast, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the delay is in no way due to apathy on the part of the Government.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I hope the Postmaster General will also take seriously into consideration the fact that it is very important that letters going out from Belfast to England and Scotland should be delivered early. My experience shows that for these letters the Larne and Stranraer route is the best, and the feeling is strong that this route ought to be developed.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the statement he has made. I fully accept his assurance. No doubt the question is a very complicated one. The right hon. Gentleman has shown reasons why the Amendment should not be pressed, and I therefore wish to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  FORGED TRANSFERS (No. 2) BILL. (No. 323.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

  THE BEHRING SEA SEAL FISHERY.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury has given notice of his intention on Monday next to move the First Reading of a Bill to give Her Majesty power by Order in Council, during a period to be named in the Order, to prevent the killing of seals by Her Majesty's subjects in the Behring Sea. As the matter is urgent, it will be convenient if the House will permit the Bill to be read a first time to-morrow at 2 o'clock.
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.