Commons Sitting of 7 April 1892

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDON WATER (No. 1) BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR J. LUBBOCK: The question of the Metropolitan water supply is of great, of pressing, and increasing importance. It is not necessary in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, nor have I any desire, to impugn the quality or quantity of the companies' supply; but the population of the Metropolitan area and the surrounding country increases very rapidly, and, of course, that implies a corresponding increase in the demand for water, while it increases the difficulty of maintaining the purity of the supply. I do not wish to trouble the House with statistics, and will merely point out that the population, which in 1870 was 3,350,000,

    815
    in 1891 had become 5,700,000, and is still increasing. The demand for water within the Metropolitan area supplied by the companies is now, on an average, 184,000,000 gallons a day. The average daily quantity taken from the Thames is 97,000,000 gallons, rising upon occasions to 105,000,000. The amount considered by the Royal Commission as the maximum which ought to be taken from the Thames was 110,000,000, and the maximum amount which legally can be taken is 130,000,000. We are then approaching very nearly the limit of our tether, and this in the face of a rapidly-increasing population. The matter is the more pressing because, even if this House granted a new supply, that must be taken from a source at such a distance from London that it would certainly be ten years before the supply would reach London. Under the law as it at present exists, London is prevented from taking any steps to protect itself, and to insure this future supply, while other cities are appropriating the remaining sources of supply. As regards taking more water from the Thames and its tributaries, that would be a proposal, I am sure, vigorously resisted by the Home Counties, the alternative, sometimes recommended, is to have recourse to deep wells. I may quote the Report of the Royal Commission of 1869, where they say with justice—
    "Any water obtained by tapping the chalk reservoirs would only pro tanto diminish those streams and would, therefore, be little or nothing gained to the general supply."
    Now, the majority of my colleagues on the London County Council do not always agree with the Corporation of London, but upon this subject I am happy to say the County Council and the Corporation are working harmoniously together. We did at first differ on the subject of water, but when we came to compare our views and to take counsel together we found we arrived at the same conclusion; and I desire to recognise the courtesy we have received from the representatives of the City on this subject. I have the honour to introduce the Bill on behalf of both the County Council and the Corporation, and the combination will, I hope, insure a favour-
    816
    able consideration from the House. We propose to constitute a Joint Water Committee to deal with the whole question. The Corporation will have power to nominate any competent persons to represent them. As the Bill stands the County Council will be limited to our own members, but there is great force, I think, in the recommendations of last year's Committee that the same freedom of selection should be afforded the County Council. That, however, is a matter for Committee. Now objection, I understand, has been taken to the Bill by the Water Companies—I hope it may not be so, but I am anticipating what may be said, though I do not know that it will be — that the Bill authorises the County Council to introduce into Parliament Bills for promoting schemes for independent works in competition with the undertakings of existing companies. But I desire to point out that in this respect all that London asks is to be placed in the same position as other Municipalities. The introduction of this clause does not indicate a desire to take any unfair advantage of the companies in this respect. But Parliament has never laid down a hard and fast rule that under no circumstances should such a course be refused. We can imagine circumstances in which it might be necessary. All the Bill does is to place London in the same position as other Municipalities, and it will not authorise us to carry out any such scheme, but only, if we think it necessary, to prepare such a scheme and place it before this House. That is a power possessed by every Municipality, and in introducing a Bill dealing with the subject I do not see why London should not have similar power. It is also said the Bill is not now as necessary as it was, and that it ought not to be pressed forward on account of the fact that Her Majesty's Government have appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject, but I submit to the House that that fact shows all the more strongly the desirability of passing some such Bill as this I have now the honour of moving. It shows at least that in the opinion of Government there is a primâ facie

    817
    case. If the Royal Commission should report in favour of a new or supplementary water supply, then before we could do anything to give effect to such a recommendation at least a year, and perhaps more, would be required to pass a preliminary Bill such as this now proposed. We only ask Parliament to place us in a position to act promptly should the Royal Commission declare the necessity for doing so. In consequence of the appointment of the Royal Commission the Bill will have to be materially modified. As it stands Clause 5 gives certain powers of inquiry to the County Council which in view of the inquiry by Royal Commission are not now required. The clause was adopted before the Government had determined upon the Commission. We have no desire to harass the companies or to act unfairly towards them. We propose, therefore, to omit the clause in Committee. Then it has been thought that Clause 3 goes too much into detail, and we propose, at the suggestion of Government, to modify the clause, striking out the detail and inserting general powers. I do not know that in moving the Second Reading I need go into further detail. We had a very interesting discussion not long ago on the subject of a water supply for Birmingham, and I think it was shown that there is a general opinion that quite enough water is taken from the Thames, and in view of the rapid increase of population the subject of our water supply is one of great importance. Under the circumstances, and seeing that the Bill is not very complex in character—that it only asks that the London County Council shall be invested with the powers enjoyed by other Municipalities—I hope the House will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I went through the Bill in conference with the representatives of the Corporation and the London County Council, and I think they have fairly met the
    818
    objections I felt to some of the clauses in view of the fact that the Government had appointed a Royal Commission to deal with the London water supply. As my right hon. Friend knows, the Government were originally of opinion that it would have been better to have followed the suggestion made by the Committee on the Water Bills of last Session, that the County Council itself should conduct an inquiry into the question of the London water supply; but the London County Council represented to us, as did the Corporation, that they would be considerably hampered in the want of power to conduct a proper inquiry, and they pressed on the Government an inquiry by Royal Commission. We acceded to the request of the London County Council and the Corporation, and I think my right hon. Friend and the House will admit that, both in regard to the instructions given to the Royal Commission and the personnel, we have done our utmost to meet the necessities of the case, and to secure a proper, full and impartial investigation into this enormously important question. Having done that, I represented to the gentlemen who waited upon me that it was impossible to assent to the clause enabling the County Council and the Corporation to conduct an inquiry into the question, and to examine into the books and works of the Water Companies. I think it would be very unfair to them that while an inquiry such as this was being undertaken by a Royal Commission, a similar inquiry should be conducted by the County Council and the Corporation. The justice of that view was acknowledged, and, therefore, as my right hon. Friend says, Clause 5 will disappear from the Bill. I also objected to Clause 3, because I thought not only did it give power to the County Council to introduce a Bill connected with the water supply, but it was framed on rather too combative a principle, putting in the forefront of the clause some of the most debateable questions possible to conceive. I was also informed by the Chairman of Committees that he would regard such a clause as contrary to the views expressed by the Committee which sat last year. But I also said at the same time that I did feel, looking at the

    819
    position at which we had arrived on the water question, that I did not think the Government could fairly ask the House of Commons to reject a clause giving the County Council some power to introduce a Bill. I intimated that while not approving of Clause 3 I should be satisfied with a clause giving general powers to the County Council to introduce a Bill. As a matter of fact, what it amounts to is this: simply that if they introduce a Bill they shall be enabled to pay the cost of such introduction from the rates. This is the same power any other Municipality has in introducing a Bill, but unless a clause of this kind were inserted they would have to run the risk of having to pay the cost of the Bill. I felt that a body like the London County Council having gone carefully into the matter, and a Committee of the House of Commons having indicated that the County Council ought to proceed further, the Government could not fairly ask the House to refuse power to the County Council to introduce such a Bill if they should think it necessary. I think it is extremely probable that the County Council may think it undesirable to introduce such a Bill until the Royal Commission have reported. I do not imagine they have any idea of doing so until then, but they say it is possible they may require or wish to act promptly after the Royal Commission have presented their Report, and for this reason they ask for this power in the Bill. My right hon. Friend has omitted to mention two points upon which the Bill will need amendment. Sub-section "A" of Clause 4 should be omitted. Power is taken by that for the London County Council to make and enforce regulations now made and enforced by the Local Government Board in respect to every water supply throughout the whole country. Whatever form powers in connection with those regulations may take at some future time, I think they should not be transferred until matters are further developed. There are also the words "public or" which should be omitted from Sub-section "B." I see no reason why the London County Council should not have power to make a private inquiry while the Commission make a
    820
    public inquiry. When these Amendments are made the Bill will assume this shape: it will set up a Joint Committee of the London County Council and the Corporation, and this Joint Committee will have power to make private investigation and to endeavour to come to arrangements with any Water Company who may choose to have negotiations with them, and it will give the County Council power, when it is thought right, generally to deal with water business.
    COLONEL MAKINS: The Water Companies are now perfectly satisfied with the action of the Government and the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill as first introduced was in an objectionable shape, but now, by agreement between my right hon. Friend and representatives of the Corporation and the London County Council, it has been brought into a shape to which there is very little objection indeed. I think, if the companies had been addressed in the moderate tone and fair manner in which my right hon. Friend has introduced this measure, there would have been no necessity whatever for saying anything in opposition to the Bill. The Bill itself, no doubt, carries out practically, or to a very great extent, the recommendations of the Select Committee which reported in July last year. In one important respect, however, it does not do this. The Select Committee made it a very strong point that the County Council should not take steps to introduce competing measures with the Water Companies, and that the House should not give countenance to such measures. That is the only point upon which I should like some further assurance. No doubt the Water Companies are unpopular, but be it remembered they are the creatures of Parliament, they were created by Parliament, that they are bound hand and foot by Acts of Parliament, and are controlled by the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board, and if they have committed faults heavy penalties have been imposed, and they may charitably be supposed to have purged any offence they may have committed. If competing Bills are to be brought in, a large amount of ratepayers' money, as

    821
    well as shareholders' money, may be wasted in useless attempts at legislation. It is quite true that other large towns have powers to promote Bills, but I am not aware that in all these 50 or 60 cases there has been shown that very strong feeling of antagonism towards Water Companies which has been displayed by some of the members of the London County Council, and there has been no case in which the rights of a Water Company have been compulsorily acquired without arbitration. If everyone had spoken in the tone my right hon. Friend has adopted, the companies would have less objection to the Bill. But there are other members of the Council, such as Sir Thomas Farrer, who, in speeches, in evidence before the Committee, and in letters to the newspapers, have never ceased to exhibit towards the Water Companies an animus finandi of the most violent character. It would not be difficult to give quotations to justify my statement, and but a few days ago Sir Thomas Farrer gloated over the ruin which he thought had been brought upon the Water Companies by the efforts of himself and others, and in proof of his success Sir Thomas Farrer referred to the fall in the value of Water Stock. But what does this mean—this fall in the value of the Water Companies' Stock? It means that a great deal of unnecessary loss and pain falls upon widows and orphans who hold the Stock, and though little sympathy is expressed I think that as much is deserved by them as by the working classes of whom so much is said. Sir Thomas Farrer has expressed delight at the fall in the price of Stock, but that reduction has nothing to do with the value of the property, it has only to do with those who are compelled to sell. The property is held on the faith of Acts of Parliament, and so long as those Acts are maintained the property will keep its value. I hope we shall have the assurance confirmed that there is no intention to introduce competing Bills into Parliament. As I have said, the Water Companies were created by Parliament, and are content to rest their case in the hands of Parliament. If there is no intention to work injustice to the companies by these competing measures I have
    822
    no more to say, but if there is no such intention, let the fact appear on the face of the Bill, by an Amendment that should be made perfectly clear. I have given notice of an Instruction which would bring the Bill into absolute accord with the Report of the Select Committee, but after the very fair and moderate way in which the Second Reading has been moved, and after the speech just made by the President of the Local Government Board, I think we may rest satisfied that no injustice will be done. I am quite sure that this is the desire of the great majority of the House, though unfortunately that is not an unanimous desire. Having made a protest against confiscating legislation, I shall best consult the interests of those I represent, and of the House generally, by giving notice that I shall not move the Instruction standing in my name.
    MR. J. STUART: As I suppose from the withdrawal of the Instruction that the Bill will be allowed to go through without opposition, I think I should not allow this opportunity to pass without a reply to the remarks of the hon. Member who has just sat down, with respect to my friend Sir Thomas Farrer. The attitude of Sir Thomas Farrer on this question has been extremely misrepresented by the hon. Gentleman, who has spoken as if Sir Thomas Farrer and other members of the London County Council have not due regard for the interests of widows and orphans. We admit there may be widows and orphans who may be owners of shares in Water Companies; but, Sir, there are widows and orphans who are ratepayers of London, and whose interests equally demand consideration. The hon. Member seems to think that the first action of the London County Council should be to buy up the Water Companies' property at the price the Stock stands in the market now.
    COLONEL MAKINS: No, by arbitration.
    MR. J. STUART: I should like to point out that the early anticipation of an arrangement to purchase is an easy ready means of keeping up the price of the shares; but on the other hand the fall in price shows that it is undesirable

    823
    to hurry in the matter. As to the London County Council introducing competing Bills for a water supply, I may observe that the power to introduce such Bills is in no sense co-extensive with the probability of such Bills being passed. There is no intention of granting to the London County Council any privileges or rights other than those possessed by every other Municipality in the country. All we seek is the right to introduce certain Bills which, being introduced, the House will decide upon them on principles of fairness and justice to all parties.
    SIR J. LUBBOCK: I merely wish to add a few words. As to the 5th clause, we should not have introduced it at all if at the time we had been aware that the Government were about to appoint a Royal Commission. That Commission being appointed we felt the clause was unnecessary, and though, technically, we could not withdraw it, we are prepared to do so in Committee. As regards Clause 3, I may say it was not introduced in any combative spirit, but from a desire to show our intention fully, and we are quite ready to accede to the suggestion of the President of the Local Government Board.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    Electric and Cable Railways (Metropolis),—That they have appointed a Committee, consisting of Five Lords, to join with the Committee of the Commons (pursuant to Message of this House) on Electric and Cable Railways (Metropolis).
    Statute Law Revision,—That they have added a Lord to the Joint Committee appointed by both Houses to consider the subject of Statute Law Revision, and request this House to add one of its Members to the said Joint Committee.

QUESTIONS.

  BARKISLAND ENDOWED SCHOOL.
  MR. STANSFELD: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Barkisland Endowed
  824
  School Scheme, approved by the Charity Commissioners on the 8th August, 1890, and submitted to the Committee of the Privy Council, has been considered by him, and with what result?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): This scheme is strongly opposed in the locality, and the Department is now in communication with the Charity Commissioners with a view to meeting a demand for more direct local representation on the Governing Body, and in order, among other things, to modify certain provisions of the scheme which the Education Act of last year has rendered obsolete.

  ARMY SCIENCE EXAMINATIONS.
  SIR H. ROSCOE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that science is not a compulsory subject at the entrance examination for Woolwich, and that, although science is taught at the Royal Military Academy, no fixed minimum attainment in the subject is insisted on there; whether he is aware that, in consequence of these facts, it is possible for a cadet to gain admission to the Scientific Corps of the Royal Engineers without possessing a fair elementary knowledge of any branch of experimental science; whether he is aware that, owing to the above fact, and to the generally disadvantageous position of those cadets who have entered the Royal Military Academy with a knowledge of science as compared with those who have taken German at the entrance competition, it has of late become increasingly difficult to maintain science studies in the Army classes of public schools, and that, in consequence, there is likely soon to be a falling off in the proportion of candidates who offer science in these competitions; and whether he will undertake to investigate and to remedy this evil?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): Science is not, and never has been, a compulsory subject in the entrance examination for the Royal Military Academy; but as an optional subject it is on the same level as regards marks as higher mathematics,

  825
  modern languages, and classics. Science is one of ten subjects taught at the Academy, but it would be unreasonable to insist on every candidate qualifying in every subject. It is scarcely possible for a candidate to gain admission to the Engineers without a fair elementary knowledge of chemistry and physics, and so far no cadet has done so. I am not aware of the fact that it has of late become increasingly difficult to maintain science studies in the Army classes of public schools, or that in consequence there is likely soon to be a falling off in the proportion of candidates who offer science in these competitions; but I have received a paper on the subject from the hon. Member, which is being carefully looked into at the War Office.

  SCHOOL ATTENDANCE—THE ABOLI- TION OF FEES.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will grant as an unopposed Return, and issue before the Education Department Estimates are considered, a statement showing the number of day scholars who were in average attendance in all the elementary schools in England and Wales during the first six months after the abolition of school fees, that is, ending 31st March, 1892, as compared with the number in attendance in the corresponding period ending 31st March, 1891?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: The statistics collected by the Department are made up for the year ending31st August, and I have no means of ascertaining the average attendance for any other period, but from the information supplied by the Inspectors who were consulted as to the effect of the Act during the first two months of its operation, it appeared that a considerable increase had taken place. The financial estimate submitted to Parliament is based upon the assumption that the average attendance will increase 2.2 per cent., as against 1 per cent. for the twelve months preceding the abolition of fees, but this estimate does not re-
  826
  present the full effect of the Act, because the average attendance for the period it covers is only partially affected thereby.

  FREE MEDICAL ATTENDANCE FOR OFFICERS IN INDIA.
  MR. KING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that "off-reckoning" Colonels in the Indian Army while in India have since 1887 been deprived of the privilege of free medical attendance in India, although, at the same time, the Indian Government was contending, for other purposes, that such officers were not retired, but were still serving; whether, by Her Majesty's Regulations both for Home and Colonial Service, all officers on full pay are not entitled to medical attendance; and why the privilege is refused to Indian officers?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CURZON,): The Regulation is not a recent one. Since 1871 it has applied to unemployed General Officers—whether drawing Colonels' allowances or not—and in 1887 it was extended to all other full pay officers on the supernumerary unemployed list, who were residing in India for their own convenience. The Secretary of State understands that under the Rules for the British Service officers on full pay, subject to certain conditions, receive gratuitous medical attendance. The Rules for the British Service do not apply to the Indian Army. Neither the Government of India nor the Secretary of State consider it necessary or desirable that officers who are not wanted in India for military duty, but who choose it as their place of residence merely for their own convenience, should have the privilege of free medical attendance.

  THE PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX.
  MR. KING: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state how many individuals paid Income Tax in Great Britain in the financial year 1890–91; how many of these individuals paid upon incomes amounting to exactly £400 and under that sum; the total Income Tax receipts for 1890–91; and the total amount

  827
  contributed by individuals with incomes of £400 and under?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I am afraid that I have no means of giving the information as desired. Under Schedules A and B of the Income Tax the only record is of the number of properties assessed and not of the individuals. Again, under Schedule C, the tax on which is chiefly assessed on bank dividends, there is no record of individuals; and under Schedule D each company assessed only counts as one assessment, although it may represent thousands of shareholders. There is a record, however, under "trades and professions," forming a section only of Schedule D, and also under Schedule E. The number of persons (thus limited) with incomes under £400 a year who were charged to Income Tax in 1889–90 was 554,527. The figures for 1890–91 are not yet available. The duty charged or assessed on such persons was £1,183,343, but this would be subject to some rebate for repayments in respect of life assurance and over-assessments. In 1890–91 the Income Tax yield was as follows:—Total net receipts, £13,143,932; total Exchequer produce, £13,250,000.

  POST OFFICES AND BANK HOLIDAYS.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether any regulation has been issued requiring shops which are also postal sub-offices to remain open on Bank Holidays; and, if so, whether, considering the long hours of labour of shop assistants, he would reconsider the subject?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): No such regulation has been issued. The general practice is to close the small offices which are not telegraph offices at noon on Bank Holidays, and in London and most of the large towns they are for the most part altogether closed. The tendency is rather to relax the existing conditions than to make them more stringent.

  MINING ROYALTIES.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact, as stated in the Newspaper Press, that a valuable discovery of auriferous lead has been made in the workings of the Millwr Mining Company, Limited, near Holywell, Flintshire, and that, in driving levels at a considerable depth from the surface, some rich gold has been struck; whether, under the Acts of William and Mary, this gold will belong entirely to the mine owner, unless the Crown purchases the ore at £25 per ton; whether, under those Acts, if gold is found in a lead mine, a tin mine, copper mine, or iron mine, the mine owner is entitled to the gold, the Crown only having the pre-emption to purchase the ore at certain fixed prices; whether persons mining for gold alone, and not in combination with base metals, are protected in any way; whether the Woods and Forests Office are entitled to fix any royalty; and, whether legislation will be introduced by the Government with the view of protecting the State where gold is obtained from lead in the same manner as where gold is obtained by itself without being associated with the base metals?
  MR. GOSCHEN: My answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is, No. With regard to the second, third, and fourth paragraphs, I would refor him to the Judgments delivered in the case of "The Attorney General v. Morgan." My answer to the fifth paragraph is, Yes. As regards the sixth, I can say nothing till the Royal Commission has reported.

  BOROUGH AND COUNTY MAGIS- TRATES.
  MR. STOREY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will grant a Return showing the Magistrates on 31st March, 1892, in the respective boroughs (having separate Commissions of the Peace) and counties, or divisions of counties, in England and Wales; and setting forth the name, description, trade and profession, and date of appointment of each Magistrate?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): The information asked for by the hon. Member is to be found in Parliamentary Papers No. 13 of 1886 and 356 of the Session of 1888. It appears to be too early to call for fresh editions of these voluminous Returns.

  GALLERY OF BRITISH ART.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any further progress has been made in the negotiations with Mr. Henry Tate for the establishment of a Gallery of British Art; and whether, if Mr. Tate has finally declined to accept any site at South Kensington, the Government will consider the adaptability for this purpose of the alternative sites that have been suggested, at the back of the National Gallery, at Whitehall, and at Millbank?
  MR. LAWSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman at the same time to say if he has had any communication from the London County Council on the subject?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Replying to the last question first, I have not had any communication from the London County Council, but I have had an indirect feeler which I think proceeded from that quarter. No negotiations are in progress with Mr. Tate for the establishment of a Gallery of British Art. Mr. Tate has withdrawn his offer. With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, the site at the back of the National Gallery has, I will not say been bespoken, but, at all events, been earnestly claimed by the Trustees of the National Gallery for the expansion of that institution, and I should not be prepared to make any statement as to the site at Whitehall or at Millbank.

  SENTENCE ON A JUVENILE OFFENDER, EDINBURGH.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether there is any truth in the statement in the newspapers that a child of the age of five years has been sentenced by Magistrates in Edinburgh to ten days'
  830
  imprisonment (for stealing from its father), to be followed by a committal to a reformatory; and whether steps will be taken to discharge the said child from any further punishment?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): There is no truth in the statement referred to by the hon. Member. The child in question is in his 14th year, and had been previously convicted of theft. This consequently was his second offence, and his father specially desired that he should be sent to a reformatory, as he had lost all control over him.

  ZULULAND BOUNDARY COMMISSION.
  MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the proceedings of the recent Boundary Commission in the Ndwandwe district of Zululand?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The Report and other correspondence bearing on the subject will be laid before Parliament.

  SPEY SALMON FISHINGS.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate under what title and for what consideration the Duke of Richmond and Gordon holds about eight miles of salmon fishings at the mouth of the Spey; whether he is aware that these fishings seriously injure the value of the fishings on the river generally; and whether any steps can be taken to remedy the evil?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I am unable to give any answer to the first part of the question, and I have no information relating to the second part. As to the last part, I have only to suggest that anyone who suffers from the alleged evil should take legal advice as to a remedy.

  SENTENCE FOR NIGHT POACHING, NAIRN.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to a case tried at the Sheriff Court in Nairn on

  831
  the 29th ultimo, when the son of a crofter pleaded guilty to night poaching, the facts being that the accused, being the only support of an aged father, and having failed to get work during the recent severe frost, had been forced by want to take a few rabbits, hundreds of which were running near his door, and that he was sentenced to imprisonment for one month, and to find caution for £20, or to suffer imprisonment for another month; and whether, in view of the fact that the law as it stands leaves the Judge no power to inflict a fine or reduce the amount of caution money, Her Majesty's Government feel disposed to take steps with the object of amending the law in the direction indicated?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: The statement of facts in this question is wholly inaccurate, except that the accused pleaded guilty, and received sentence as stated. The following are the facts according to my information: The case was a bad one, without any redeeming circumstance. The accused is 40 years of age. He had on a previous occasion been charged with night poaching, and forfeited his bail. The offence now in question was committed three miles from his home. So far from being the support of his father, the accused has been a source of continual anxiety to him. There was no lack of work. His father is a hardworking, industrious man, and was actually at work on the day in question; and the accused might have shared in the work if he had been so inclined. The law as it stands gives the Judge complete power over the sentence, and he may either fine or imprison as he thinks proper.

  VACCINE LYMPH.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the humanised lymph distributed from the National Vaccine Establishment, which is derived from various public vaccinators throughout the country, has been found, on examination, to vary greatly in quality, and, in some cases, from 60 to 70 per cent. of the tubes have, upon microscopic examination by Mr. Farn, the official examiner of vaccine lymph, been rejected
  832
  as unfit for use; and whether, in view of these facts, he will advise that no lymph shall be used for public vaccination unless it has been first submitted to official microscopical examination?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): As I very recently informed the hon. Member, in reply to a question by him, the only humanised lymph distributed by the National Vaccine Establishment which is not microscopically examined is that supplied on points, and this lymph is exclusively furnished to the Department by their own officers, who themselves have carefully taken the lymph. I see no reason to advise a change in the existing arrangements as to the lymph for public vaccinations.

  THE SHAMROCK IN THE ARMY.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Commander of the Forces in Ireland and the members of his Staff usually wear the shamrock in their regimentals on St. Patrick's Day; whether the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Ireland obtains the consent of his superior officer, the Duke of Cambridge, previously to wearing the shamrock in his uniform; and did Lord Wolseley on last St. Patrick's Day obtain any such express consent to the wearing of the shamrock; if not, will he explain the reason of this exception to the rule requiring the previous consent of the commanding officer to be given to the wearing of the shamrock?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The wearing of the shamrock on St. Patrick's Day by the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland and his Staff is a question for that officer's discretion. Lord Wolseley did not, as a matter of fact, attend any military parade on 17th March; nor did he wear the shamrock on that day.
  MR. MACNEILL: More shame for him then.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (SCOTLAND).
  COLONEL MALCOLM: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate when the decision on the schemes for piers and harbours, laid before the Secretary for Scotland by the County Councils under the West Highlands and Islands

  833
  (Scotland) Works Bill of last Session, will be given; and what steps are being taken with regard to them?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I have to inform my hon. and gallant Friend that the Secretary for Scotland hopes soon to be in a position to decide on the applications which have already been received, and is at present making inquiry into these applications under the power given to him by the Statute referred to.

  STIRLING AND OBAN MAIL SERVICE.
  COLONEL MALCOLM: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has determined to maintain the accelerated mail service between Stirling and Oban all the year round; whether he has received tenders for the proposed improved postal service in the West Highlands and Islands; and, if so, how many tenders were sent in; whether they agreed to the conditions advertised as to an improved class of steam vessels with better speed, and, if they did not so agree, will he restrict the contracts to a period of twelve months, so that the public may have another opportunity of tendering?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: It has not been found practicable to arrange for the maintenance of the accelerated mail service between Stirling and Oban all the year round. No tenders have been received for the postal services in the West Highlands and Islands that agree to the conditions advertised, and the only practicable proposals made are for the continuance of the existing service. The new contracts will be for a period of twelve months, terminable at any time on six months' notice.

  THE LAGOS TREATIES.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the report in the Lagos Weekly Record for 23rd January of the interview with the Jebu deputation, in which it is stated that the Governor used the following language:—
  "His Excellency knew that there was war in the interior; but the roads should be opened first, and afterwards he would see alter the rest. That if they did not open the roads, and would not do so, he would coerce them into doing it, and that the matter of the war in the interior did not concern the Jebus";
  834
  whether Mr. Carter was authorised to use this threat of coercion, and whether his action in doing so has received the sanction of Her Majesty's Government?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The Governor acted under instructions from Her Majesty's Government, which were to the effect that he was to intimate to the King of Jebu that if he refused compliance with the demands made, the Governor had orders to take such measures as might be necessary to enforce them. The correspondence will be found among the Papers when presented to Parliament.
  MR. SUMMERS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when these Papers will be published?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I must give the same answer I have given before—Papers will be laid on the Table as soon as possible consistently with the public interest.

  CONDITION OF THE STREETS BETWEEN VICTORIA STREET AND ST. JAMES'S PARK.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the insanitary condition of the streets lying between Victoria Street and St. James's Park; and whether he will direct that an inquiry shall be made with relation thereto; and whether he proposes to take any steps to bring about the removal of the slaughter-house still existing in this locality?
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman is there any truth in the allegation that these streets are in an insanitary condition? Is it not the fact that the Vestry and the Sanitary Inspector are satisfied as to the condition of the streets?
  MR. RITCHIE: My attention has not been drawn to the insanitary condition of the streets between Victoria Street and the St. James's Park, or to the existence of the slaughter-house which is mentioned. If there is ground for complaint as to the condition of these places, the first step is to bring the facts of the case under the attention of the Local Authority, who are responsible

  835
  for the sanitary condition of their district. I am not aware whether this course has been taken. If it has been, and without any satisfactory results, I shall be prepared to consider any statement of the facts with which I may be furnished.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I may say I have already taken the steps suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, but matters have not improved.
  MR. RITCHIE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me have particulars.

  AUSTRALIAN MAILS.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Times newspaper of 1st April that the French packet Polynesia left Adelaide 19 hours after the Peninsular and Oriental steamer Victoria, and reached Marseilles four days in advance of that steamer; and whether in future he will arrange that the Australian mails shall be carried by the quickest vessels?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Such a paragraph as is referred to in the question appeared in the Times, and no doubt meant to refer to the Polynesian, which left Adelaide 3rd March, and reached Marseilles 30th March. The Victoria left Adelaide 2nd March, and reached Brindisi 1st April, a day and a half before her contract time. The French steamers leave Adelaide only once in each calendar month; the English contract service regularly every week. To keep the mails out of the regular contract packet, whenever it chanced that a quicker French boat was to start shortly, would be to sacrifice the regularity of the service for the sake of an occasional quick transit. This would be very undesirable; and I cannot undertake to do so.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: Will the Australian mails continue to be sent by steamers which are beaten by four days on the voyage by steamers of another line?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: It is in pursuance of the contract entered into by agreement with the Colonies for what was thought a fairly rapid service. I could not possibly disturb this for the sake of using a French steamer, which only goes once a month.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: When does the contract expire?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: If the hon. Member will put down that question I will answer it. I cannot give him the information now.

  CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. J. KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether certain candidates who failed to obtain places amongst those who were declared successful in the open competitive examination held in November last for nine Civil Service clerkships, Class 1, have since been offered and have accepted appointments in this same class; if so, what is the number of such unsuccessful candidates who have been given such appointments; what proportion of the total marks obtainable were respectively secured by such unsuccessful candidates; and what proportion did the number of the candidates in the competitive examination bear to that of the clerkships which have now been filled up?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. GORST,): It is inaccurate to describe the candidates in question as unsuccessful, because the regulations specifically provide for the offer of subsequent vacancies to candidates remaining on the list if fully qualified. Three such vacancies have occurred and have been filled. It is not possible to state the total number of marks obtainable; but the three candidates alluded to gained 1,674, 1,545, and 1,456 marks respectively. The total number of competitors was 26, and the number who have received appointments is 12.

  BALLYCASTLE AND BALLINA MAIL CAR DRIVER.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the case of Denis Howe, driver of the mail car between Ballycastle and Ballina, County Mayo, who was found by the police in a house near the public road drinking, while the mail car was left without any supervision; and what the result of the case has been?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The incident above referred to appears to have

  837
  occurred on the 20th June of last year. Howe and several other men were summoned for being found on unlicensed premises drinking. He denied that he was there for that purpose, and stated that he had merely called to take up a passenger, and that he left his car for a few minutes only in charge of a passenger. The summons against him was dismissed. Howe has always borne a good character as a sober and steady man, and he is still driver of the mail car.

  COMMITTAL OF DEBTORS.
  MR. A. E. PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of persons that have been committed to prison by the County Court Judge for Circuit No. 15 during the year 1891, and up to 29th February, 1892, and in what gaols they are, or have been, incarcerated; what is the relative proportion, in the County Court Circuit No. 15, of imprisonments to judgments for plaintiffs compared with the rest of England; how many of the persons imprisoned are imprisoned for cases arising out of debts, how many were committed at the instance of the creditor, and how many at the instance of agents or debt-farmers; whether any of those persons have been under age or over 70 years of age; and, if they have, what are the numbers of each class respectively; whether it is necessary for the judgment creditor to prove means of the judgment debtor at the time of the hearing of the committal summons, or whether it is only necessary to show means at any time subsequent to the contracting of the liability; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of introducing a measure controlling imprisonment for debts other than fraudulent, and rendering illegal imprisonment in all cases arising out of non-fraudulent debts where the Court is moved by persons other than the original creditor or creditors, or a measure that will give to the poorer classes of the community the advantages given to the wealthier classes by the Bankruptcy Laws?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The latest available statistics for which the hon. Member asks will be found at page 34 of the Parliamentary Return No.
  838
  337 of last Session, from which he can gather the proportion he asks for. Persons committed to prison by the County Court Judge of Circuit 15 are imprisoned in Durham, York, Leeds, and Northallerton Prisons. The application for commitment is in all cases at the instance of the creditor. There is no record to show whether a creditor appears in person or is represented at the Court. No record is kept at the Court of the age of the persons committed to prison; but the learned County Court Judge states that he is not aware that any debtor over 70 has ever been committed to prison by him. No person can be imprisoned for debt unless it has been proved, in accordance with Section 5, Sub-section 2, of the Debtors Act of 1869, that such debtor has means to pay, or has had them since the date of the judgment and has refused or neglected to pay. That comes very near to a fraudulent omission to pay. There appear to be no sufficient reasons for legislation to deprive a creditor of the right of enforcing his claims through a representative; and no satisfactory solution has been found, as yet, for the particular class of cases dealt with in Section 5 above-mentioned. The Bankruptcy Act of 1883 provides, by Section 122, a method by which the poorer classes can, without expense, obtain protection for their persons and property equivalent to the advantages of an adjudication in bankruptcy.
  SIR H. DAVEY: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the continuous increase in the number of commitments to prison for non-payment of debts in the County Courts, and particularly in Circuit No. 15; whether he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists with the present state of the law; and whether the Government proposes any legislation on the subject?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I can only refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has previously given on this subject.
  SIR H. DAVEY: I give notice that I shall take an early opportunity of calling attention to this question.

  THE CASE OF P. W. NALLY.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is optional with Prison Governors in Ireland to allow or disallow prisoners to give evidence before a Coroner as to the cause of death within the prison and the prison treatment of a fellow-prisoner; and whether there is any precedent for the action of the Governor of Mountjoy Prison in withholding from the Coroner the knowledge that five witnesses were willing to give material evidence as to the cause of the death of the late Mr. P. W. Nally?
  MR. JACKSON: I am informed by the Governor of Mountjoy Prison that there is no reason to believe that any of the prisoners were in a position to give material evidence, or any evidence at all, as to the cause of the death of Nally. Had he had such knowledge as that indicated in the question, the Governor would undoubtedly have communicated it to the Coroner, which would have been following the ordinary course under the circumstances.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Was the Governor at liberty to act on his own belief?
  MR. JACKSON: I have had an opportunity of inquiring personally into this matter, and so far as I can gather there was no reason for the Governor to believe that these men were able to give any evidence at all as to the cause of death. No communication took place between the prisoners mentioned and the prisoner Nally subsequent to his illness; and the doctor, to whom I made reference, holds very strongly the opinion that none of the prisoners were in a position to give any evidence at all as to the cause of death. Had the Governor been in possession of any such knowledge he would certainly have communicated it to the Coroner.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Did not the allegations of the other prisoners go to show that he was engaged in employment of which he frequently complained was killing him; and having this in view will the right hon. Gentleman not give the public an opportunity of knowing what he himself has learned by taking evidence by means of an independent inquiry?
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member has been good enough to send me the newspaper cutting containing the statement of M'Auley. I have had careful inquiry made, and so far as I have been able to judge none of the statements to which the hon. Gentleman has referred have any foundation in fact.

  EVICTIONS ON CLARE ISLAND.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Martin O'Malley has just been evicted by a force of police from his holding on Clare Island, and that a large number of ejectment processes are pending against islanders who were last year saved from starvation by public relief; and will the Government assist in carrying out any further evictions on the island?
  MR. JACKSON: The Constabulary authorities report that the man referred to was evicted not by the police, but, at the suit of the landlord, by the Sheriff. Nineteen ejectment processes appear to have been taken out on the 1st inst. The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that the Government do not assist in carrying out evictions; personal protection to the Sheriff and bailiffs is afforded by the police when they are requisitioned so to do.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Sheriff is also agent to the landlord, and will he continue to enable this gentleman as Sheriff to requisition the Forces of the Crown to protect himself as land agent for his own private purposes?
  MR. JACKSON: I have no knowledge of the circumstances whether the person referred to acts in the double capacity, but, of course, the police are bound to give him protection when he acts in his capacity of Sheriff.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: I will put down a further question for to-morrow on this subject, and press for more information.

  THE CONVICTS MULDOONY AND FINNIGAN.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is

  841
  aware that two men, a constable named Muldooney and a farmer named Finnigan, were convicted, about the year 1883, at the Sligo Assizes; if a Memorial, signed by several Magistrates of the locality where the offence was committed, has been addressed to the Government in favour of one of the convicted; if one of the convicted has been released; in favour of which of the convicted was this Memorial addressed; and which of the convicted has been released?
  MR. JACKSON: Memorials have from time to time been received on behalf of the convict referred to, but it is not a fact that either of them have been released.

  STEAM TRAWLERS IN IRISH WATERS.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many French and Scotch steam trawlers are now off the coasts of Galway and Mayo?
  MR. JACKSON: I have caused inquiry to be made, and the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries report that there are steam trawlers off the coast of Galway and Mayo at distances ranging from 4 to 16 miles. They have no details as to their nationality.
  COLONEL NOLAN: What is the approximate number?
  MR. JACKSON: I do not give the numbers because, although I have the numbers for one or two places, I have not got them for all places, and, therefore, I cannot give a complete list.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a bare estimate?
  MR. JACKSON: I should say about 20.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a communication from the Westport Board of Guardians, calling the attention of the Government and of the Irish Fisheries Board to the destruction of nets and other grievous injury caused to the poor fishermen of Achill and Clew Bay by reason of the operations of foreign steam trawlers from France and elsewhere; whether the Irish Fisheries Board has investigated those complaints; and whether any steps will be taken to protect the native fishermen?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): Representations of the nature mentioned in the question have been received. The Inspectors have endeavoured to obtain the name of the vessel alleged to have done the damage, but so far have been unable to do so.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: Will the Inspectors continue their inquiries?
  MR. JACKSON: Yes, Sir; but I do not quite see how they are to find out the name of the vessel. No one in the locality appears to know it.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: If the depredations continue, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of sending out a gunboat to protect the nets?
  MR. JACKSON: I am unable to answer that question.

  EVENING SCHOOLS—PAYMENT OF ANNUAL GRANTS.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will lay upon the Table a Code or Minute for regulating the payment of annual grants for evening schools; and if he expects to do so before Easter?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I have already stated that the revision of the Code dealing exclusively with those Articles which refer to evening schools is in course of preparation, and will, I anticipate, be laid on the Table in the form of a Minute. I cannot at this moment undertake to say when it will be ready.

  THE ARMY PAY DEPARTMENT.
  COLONEL BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why the Army Pay Department, which is one of the largest Departments in the Army, is unlike all the others in not having a representative at the War Office to administer its affairs?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am afraid all I can say at present is that the whole constitution of this Department is under consideration, and the suggestion made by my hon. Friend has not been overlooked.

  SCHOOL TEACHERS AS MAGISTRATES AND DIRECTORS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that Mr. Abraham Park, the principal teacher of the Albion School, Aston, is a Borough Magistrate, in which capacity he frequently sits on the Bench, and adjudicates on cases of parents prosecuted for not sending their children to school; that Mr. Edward Barlow, principal teacher of the Parochial School, Aston, is Director of several Public Companies; and that Mr. Joseph Redyard, principal teacher of the National School (Castle Hall), Staleybridge, is the Chairman of the Castle Spinning Company, Director of the Guide Bridge Spinning Company, and of the Staleybridge Company, a Magistrate, and an Alderman; and whether these gentlemen are infringing Clause 85 (e), chapter 4, of the New Code, 1890, in which it is laid down, as the condition of a grant to a school—
  "That the principal teacher is not allowed to undertake duties not connected with the school which may occupy any part whatever of the school hours, or of the time appointed for the special instruction of pupil teachers"?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: The hon. Member has correctly quoted the conditions under which teachers are allowed to undertake duties not connected with the school, and I am not aware that these conditions have been violated in the cases to which he refers; but the Inspector will be instructed to make inquiry when he visits the schools.

  THE GIBRALTAR SANITARY BOARD.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State has received a copy of a resolution passed at a public meeting of the ratepayers of Gibraltar on 16th November, 1891, protesting against the putting into force of the Sanitary Order in Council (Amendment), 1891, as being injurious to the interests of the ratepayers, and depriving them of due repre-
  844
  sentation; and, further, protesting against the manner in which this Order in Council has been put into force; and what answer, if any, has been returned to the resolution in question?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The protest was received in a letter from the Committee of the Gibraltar Ratepayers' Defence Association dated the 25th of November last, and was replied to in a Despatch to the Governor on the 11th of December. I regret that it is not possible to give the answer to the protest of the Ratepayers' Association in the limits of a reply to a question, but it will be found in the Papers which it is proposed to present to Parliament.
  MR. M'LAGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the respective proportional representation of the War Office, the Admiralty, and Colonial Department on the Sanitary Board at Gibraltar before the enforcement of the Sanitary Order (Amendment Order), 1891, and what is it now under said Order; and what is the proportion each of these Departments contribute to the rates?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Under the Sanitary Order in Council of 1883 the War Office had two representatives, the Admiralty and Colonial Government one each. Under the Sanitary Order (Amendment Order), 1891, the War Office and Colonial Government have each two representatives and the Admiralty one. On the basis of the actual payments for water rate in 1889, and the assessment for general purposes rate in 1890, the War Office, out of a total of 517,477 pesetas, paid 194,988 pesetas, the Colonial Government 19,172 pesetas, and the Admiralty 16,816 pesetas. It must be remembered, however, that the Government Departments have contributed directly, in addition to their payments as ratepayers, one-third of the capital cost of all the important sewerage works.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State

  845
  for the Colonies whether he is aware that all the old members of the Sanitary Commission of Gibraltar, who were summarily dismissed under the Order of 1891 as being inefficient, have been invited by the Governor to serve on the new Commission, and have refused to do so on the ground that the Order in question gives despotic authority to the Governor, and deprives the ratepayers of their proper share in the representation on the Commission; and what steps the Government intends to take to fill up the vacancies still existing on the Board?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The old members were not dismissed as being inefficient, but the Sanitary Order (Amendment Order), 1891, provided that on its coming into operation the whole of the Sanitary Commissioners then in office should go out of office. One of the members of the old Board is serving on the new Board; another was appointed to the new Board, but has resigned. The Secretary of State believes that some, but not all, of the other members of the old Board were asked, and declined to serve on the new Board. As to the reasons assigned for such refusal, I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a similar question asked by him on the 4th inst. As regards the last part of the question, Her Majesty's Government hope that competent persons will be found willing to fill the two vacant seats on the Board, and it would, in their opinion, be premature now to consider what steps should be taken, should this hope be unfortunately disappointed.
  MR. CAUSTON: What is the right hon. Gentleman's reason for not stating the answer given by the gentlemen to whom he has referred?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Because we have not obtained the consent of those gentlemen to make those answers public. If the hon. Member wishes, however, to see them, I shall be happy to show them to him.

  CYCLISTS IN HYDE PARK.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the advisability of allowing cyclists to use the roads within Hyde Park as they are in other London Parks?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): The rules for the admission of cyclists to Hyde Park were in 1888 relaxed so as to allow of the use by cyclists of the road available for hackney carriages—I mean the road from Victoria Gate to Alexandra Gate. I do not think it would be wise, in the interests of the public generally, to admit cyclists on the other roads.

  GRANTS FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether Her Majesty's Government propose to require all schools receiving grants for secondary education under Sub-section (1) (b) of Section 2 of the Education and Local Taxation Relief (Scotland) Bill, to submit to inspection under Subsection (1) (a); what classes of schools, besides schools under the management of School Boards, are to be admitted to participate in the grants under Subsection (1) (b); and whether it is intended to extend the proposed grants to schools under the control of, or in connection with, any particular religious denomination?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: The hon. Member will no doubt feel that there is considerable inconvenience in making piecemeal statements on a somewhat complicated question of policy in answer to interrogations across the floor of the House. I will take care that full information shall be in the hands of hon. Gentlemen in time for the discussion which may be raised on the Committee stage.
  MR. BRYCE: What form will the information take, and when may we hope to get it?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: The statement will, I anticipate, be in printed form, and be laid on the Table in ample time.

  THE QUALIFICATION OF VESTRYMEN.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that as a result of the judgment of Mr. Justice Denman in the case of "Gordon v. Williamson" many Vestries have become disorganised, Vestrymen who have fulfilled their duties a considerable time, under the impression that they were legally qualified, now being afraid that their case is covered by the above decision; and whether, in view of the approaching Vestry elections, it is his intention to take action to remove the present difficulties, and enable the ratepayers to have a free selection of candidates for the several Vestries?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am aware of the judgment of Mr. Justice Denman in the case of "Gordon v. Williamson," but I have no information that many of the Vestries in the Metropolis have become disorganised. The question as to the qualification of Vestrymen in the Metropolis is one which would necessarily be dealt with by a District Councils Bill for London, but it is not my intention to propose legislation on the subject apart from that general measure.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several Vestries have become disorganised, and, the present state of the law being so unsatisfactory, that Vestrymen do not like to put themselves in the position of becoming common informers?
  MR. RITCHIE: I would point out to the hon. Member that it is quite impossible to introduce and carry a Bill through both Houses to do away with any present inconvenience without dealing with the whole question.

  PARCEL POST DELIVERY IN BELFAST AND DUBLIN.
  DR. FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain how it happens that parcels sent from London through the Parcels Post are delivered in Belfast twelve hours earlier than they are delivered in Dublin?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Parcels for the first delivery in Dublin must be posted in London in time for the dis-
  848
  patch by the 6.30 p.m. train from Euston viâ Holyhead. Parcels for Belfast are forwarded by the 8.0 p.m. train from Euston viâ Stranraer, and can therefore be posted an hour later in London for next day's delivery. It is only when parcels for Dublin are posted too late for dispatch by the 6.30 p.m. train that they are delivered later than those for Belfast, and the difference then is about eight hours, not twelve hours.

  THE CASE OF MR. R. B. BRADSHAW.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been directed to a correspondence during the months of January, February, and March, between the Registrar General and Mr. R. B. Bradshaw, of Lisnaskea, County Fermanagh, and between the Registrar General and Dr. Knox, Local District Registrar of Lisnaskea, in reference to the prosecution by Dr. Knox of Mr. Bradshaw, at the instance of the Registrar General, for the non-registration of the birth and death of a child, and especially to a letter of the Registrar General on the 29th January, 1892, to Dr. Knox, in which he states—
  "That the facts of the case were not put before this Department when you reported Mr. Bradshaw's name as a defaulter under the Registration Acts. As you were personally aware of the occurrence of the birth and death, you should have served Mr. Bradshaw with notice to register each within the legal time, and you have given no satisfactory explanation of your neglect to furnish Mr. Bradshaw with a form of statutory declaration for the registry of the birth, which it is alleged he applied for several times; further, you rendered yourself liable to a penalty by refusing to register the death when applied to within twelve months. Had the circumstances been known, instructions to prosecute would not have been issued to you."
  Whether the Local Registrar, Dr. Knox was also the medical attendant at the birth and death of the child; whether the Registrar, on the 29th January and the 3rd February, requested Mr. Bradshaw to forward to the Department the amount of the costs he was put to in defending himself against a prosecution so instituted; and whether the Registrar will now order the repayment of these expenses to Mr. Bradshaw, as the least reparation due for such action?
  MR. JACKSON: I understand that, as regards this case, Mr. Bradshaw was brought before a Magistrate and fined 2s. and 3s. costs for having failed to register the birth and death of his child. The matter was brought before the Registrar General, and as it appeared he had been fined according to law, the Registrar General felt that he could not interfere.
  MR. JORDAN: The Registrar General's letter says—
  "As you were personally aware of the occurrence of the birth and death, you should have served Mr. Bradshaw with notice to register each within the legal time, and you have given no satisfactory explanation of your neglect to furnish Mr. Bradshaw with a form of statutory declaration for the registry of the birth, which it is alleged he applied for several times; further, you rendered yourself liable to a penalty by refusing to register the death when applied to within twelve months. Had the circumstances been known, instructions to prosecute would not have been issued to you."
  Was the Local Registrar, Dr. Knox, also the medical attendant at the birth and death of the child?
  MR. JACKSON: Yes, Sir; but I do not understand that that statement of the Registrar General would in any sense exonerate Mr. Bradshaw.

  OPIUM SELLERS IN BOMBAY.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the system of requiring the opium seller in Bombay to sell a minimum quantity of opium in the year, subject to a pecuniary penalty, has been abolished?
  MR. CURZON: It will have been seen from pages 106 and 109 of the recent opium Blue Book that the Government of India have ordered the cessation of the practice of requiring from licensed opium sellers in Bombay the sale of a minimum guaranteed quantity, the object of which was to check the sale of contraband opium; that the Secretary of State has approved these instructions; and that a Report on the effect of these orders has been requested.

  THE PLAGUE OF FIELD MICE IN THE SOUTH OF SCOTLAND.
  MR. HOZIER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the
  850
  character of the Report recently issued by the Board with regard to the plague of field mice, or voles, in the South of Scotland, he will, without delay, appoint a Committee to inquire and report as to the causes of the visitation, and the best means of getting rid of it?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): If I thought that the appointment of a Committee would solve the difficulty which is presented by this question, I would appoint one to-morrow, but I cannot see that it would add anything to the information already before us. I am afraid the plague is mainly due to natural and climatic causes, and that it is only to natural causes that we can look for its disappearance. I am encouraged in this belief by what occurred when it made its appearance before, some 16 years ago. I think that probably, where it is feasible, burning might be resorted to with advantage; but beyond this I frankly acknowledge that, with all the information we have been able to obtain, I am entirely at a loss to suggest any effective remedy for this calamitous visitation. I can only add that I shall be glad to do anything in my power to give prompt effect to any suggestions which may be made by others which may appear to give any reasonable hope of effecting the object in view.

  THE IRISH AND AMERICAN MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what is the annual sum now paid for mail service to the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland, and for what additional sum were the Company willing to afford the improved service desired by the Post Office; and whether the Treasury were willing to pay any, and, if so, what, additional sum for the improved service?
  Mr. P. O'BRIEN had notice to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received communications from the Cork Chamber of Commerce urging the desirability of an acceleration in the transatlantic and local mail service, and suggesting means by which it

  851
  could be accomplished; and whether he has decided to take any, and, if so, what, steps in the matter?
  Mr. MAURICE HEALYhad notice to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that for commercial purposes there is only one mail in the day between Cork and London, as letters leaving Cork by the night mail are delivered the next day after business hours, and do not therefore reach the persons to whom they are addressed until the morning after their delivery; and whether the Post Office propose to take any steps to so improve the morning service as to increase the interval between the arrival and despatch of the day mails?
  Mr. MAURICE HEALYhad notice to ask the Postmaster General if he can state the extra cost involved in the recent improvements of the English mail system to Belfast and Londonderry, including the Stranraer route; whether the Treasury made any objections to this additional expense; and whether any reason exists why the Cork mail service should be dealt with less favourably than that to the North of Ireland, especially in view of the importance of the American mails?
  Mr. MAURICE HEALYhad notice to ask the Postmaster General whether he can state the amounts of the payments made to the Great Northern and Great Southern and Western Railways of Ireland respectively for the mail services between Dublin and Belfast and Dublin and Cork, including in the latter the American mail service?
  Mr. MAURICE HEALYhad notice to ask the Postmaster General whether any improvement of the mail service to Cork is now under consideration; and whether the Post Office Department have abandoned all intention of coming to terms with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company for an improved service of mail trains?
  Dr. TANNERhad notice to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would state what is the annual sum paid for the alternative, or supplementary, mail service to and from the North of Ireland viâ Stranraer and Larne?
  Dr. TANNERhad notice to ask the Postmaster General if he would state what is the total annual sum paid to Railway Companies in England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, for the carriage of mails?
  Dr. TANNERhad notice to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual sum paid to the Great Northern Railway Company before the recent acceleration of the mail service on their line of railway, and what was the additional sum granted for the improved service?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I should like at the same time to answer Questions 10, 64, 66, 67, 68, 77, 78, and 80. They are nearly identical and on the same subject.
  MR. SEXTON: On a point of order. I have put this question to the right hon. Gentleman. I ask you if it is not in accordance with the Rules of the House that he should answer it at once?
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman proposes to answer the hon. Gentleman, but he thought he might answer a number of other questions at the same time.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The hon. Gentleman will see that I shall fully answer his question. I received communications and also a deputation of representatives of Cork and of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland in support of these proposals. That Company was prepared, for an additional payment of £3,000 a year, to afford the improved service desired. That sum, I was advised, was reasonable and moderate in amount. In view, however, of the large increase of Post Office expenditure, it has not been thought proper to incur this and other items of additional expenditure for improved services; and the scheme is for the present, therefore, rejected. It is true, as stated by the hon. Member for Cork, that the night mail letters arriving in London from Cork, though delivered on the next evening, are not delivered till after business hours. No doubt, had the proposed acceleration of the morning mail from Dublin to Cork been adopted, the interval between its arrival and the despatch of the return day mail would have been increased. In the year 1891

  853
  the total payments for mail services to the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland was £41,341, and to the Great Southern and Western £40,781. It cannot be stated what parts of these sums were paid respectively for purely local services and otherwise. The additional cost involved in the recent improvement of the English mail service to Belfast and Londonderry was £18,500 a year—namely, for the Stranraer route £13,500, and for the accelerated train service £5,000. The arrangement was, of course, made with the sanction of the Treasury. The correspondence passing to and from the North of Ireland is much larger in amount than that to and from the South. The total sums paid to English, Scotch, and Irish Railways for the conveyance of mails are £599,930, £203,750, and £157,190 respectively.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has answered only one out of the three inquiries in my question. He said the Company offered for £3,000 to give an improved service; he has not said what sum is now paid and what the Treasury are prepared to give.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I said that the sum now paid was £40,781, and I also stated that Her Majesty's Government did not think proper to expend the sum of £3,000 required, which is one of a large number of sums which it might be very judicious to expend, but the Treasury would not sanction that additional amount.
  MR. SEXTON: Were they willing to give any part of that sum?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The additional service required a particular sum, which is moderate, and we did not attempt to cut it down. The whole proposal stood by itself, and, while reasonable in itself, it was not one we were prepared to incur at the time.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman stated that the mails to the North of Ireland are greater than those to Cork; does this include the American mail?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The through mails on either route include the American mails.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Does he say that the mails from London to Belfast are greater than those from London to Cork, including the American mails?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The volume of the letters going to the North of Ireland is considerably the greater.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether there is any prospect of the present unsatisfactory method of transferring the Irish and American mails from train to steamer, and vice versâ, at Kingstown and Holyhead being improved; whether it is in the power of the Post Office authorities, under the terms of their contract with the London and North Western Railway Company, to require that Company to provide such mail vans as would permit the mails to be carried in crates, which could be lifted on board or on shore, without breaking bulk, by means of a crane; whether he is aware that the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company are strongly in favour of this system, and have expressed their willingness to contribute their share of the necessary expense of bringing it into effect; and whether the Post Office Department have made any inquiries as to whether the suggestions of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company could be usefully and successfully carried into effect?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: This matter has been fully considered several times. The mails are transferred with the utmost expedition at present, and the London and North Western Railway Company regard the proposed scheme as impracticable. The Department has no power to insist on its adoption; and looking at the serious difficulties in the way, independently of the question of expense, it is thought that the circumstances do not justify any further action by the Post Office.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the paragraph as to whether the Department have made inquiries as to the proposal for transferring the mails?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I will investigate the matter, especially as it has been suggested; but I am afraid we

  855

  shall not be able to do much. I have answered the other paragraphs of the question.

  THE EXTRA POLICE AT DURHAM.
  MR. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the large number of policemen drafted into Durham from Yorkshire and Lancashire, whether he will inform the House on what grounds these extra policemen were drafted into the county, and what has necessitated their retention; and whether he can say at whose orders they were brought, and upon whom the cost of their bringing and maintenance will fall?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Chief Constable that the extra police have been brought into the County of Durham for the preservation of the peace and for the protection of property, and that it is absolutely necessary that they should be retained in order to prevent disturbances. They were brought in at the instance of the Chief Constable, under Section 25 of the Police Act, 1890, and the cost of their bringing and maintenance will fall on the ratepayers.
  MR. J. WILSON: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman has seen the charge made to the Grand Jury of Durham on Monday by Mr. Wharton, a Member of this House, and Chairman of the Quarter Sessions? Mr. Wharton said he was happy to say that riot and outrage and breaking the law to any extent had been rare and isolated, and he was thankful to acknowledge the small amount of assault and outrage or anything approaching it; and day after day the struggle was maintained in a spirit of good humour and good conduct on the part of those concerned, and he had every hope it would be maintained in the same spirit to the end. Under these circumstances, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considers the retention of the police drafted from the counties round about was necessary, especially as they are a source of great irritation?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the responsibility of maintaining the peace in any part of the Kingdom rests on the Local Magistrates and the Chief
  856
  Constable, and I should certainly not take upon myself, except in an extreme case, to interfere with their discretion.

  QUARTERMASTERS OF ROYAL MARINES.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any reason why the provisions of Article 191, Royal Warrant, Pay and Promotion, 1891, should be withheld from Quartermasters of the Royal Marines, though freely conferred on Army Quartermasters?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The question of extending the provisions of the Royal Warrant in question to the Quartermasters of the Royal Marines is still under consideration.

  THE DISCHARGE OF A WORKMAN AT CHATHAM DOCKYARD.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has made any further inquiry with regard to the discharge of a man named Sullivan from the Chatham Dockyard; and, if so, whether the result of such inquiry will enable him to order the re-instatement of Sullivan in the Dockyard workshops?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have made further inquiry with regard to the discharge of Sullivan from Chatham Dockyard, and I find that, quite independently of the question whether he had completed his apprenticeship or not, his character as a workman was not quite satisfactory. As there is no difficulty in entering men possessing very good qualifications, I do not propose to give orders for the special re-entry of Sullivan in the yard.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS AT THE WORLD'S END, CHELSEA.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in the case of the prosecution by the Treasury of W. G. Pearson (a dock labourer), arising out of the World's End, Chelsea, meetings, an application to transfer the trial to the Court of

  857
  Queen's Bench was granted, subject to Pearson entering into recognizances for £300, and finding sureties for costs of £150 each; and whether any means exist whereby this trial, involving the question of right of public meeting, may be taken to the Court of Queen's Bench without insisting upon security for £600, which in the case of a dock labourer is necessarily prohibitive?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have no power to vary the Order of the Court on a matter wholly within their jurisdiction. It is open for any of those who consider that important questions are involved in the trial of the case to give the required security for costs to the amount of £300.

  TIDAL WATER.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War in how many and in what cases bye-laws have been made under 48 and 49 Vic, c. 36, affecting the sea or any tidal Water; in how many and in what cases the consent of the Board of Trade has been obtained to such bye-laws when public rights were affected thereby, and in how many and in what cases the consent of the Board of Trade to Such bye-laws was refused, and on what grounds?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Bye-laws have been made under the Act referred to in the cases of Shoeburyness, Lydd, Landguard Fort, Warden Point, and Hurst Castle, and the foreshore of the Wash. In every case the consent of the Board of Trade was obtained. There has been no case in which the Board of Trade has refused consent.

  THE TOKAR DISTRICT.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that in 1889 a Proclamation was issued by the British Governor of the Red Sea Littoral to the tribes round Suakin which contained the following passage:
  "I write you again so as to let you and all the tribes know clearly what the Government intend to do. As you have been often told during the past few years, the Government does not wish to interfere with the freedom pf the tribes, or to impose any taxes upon you,"
  whether it is the fact that, when the Tokar District was re-occupied in 1891,
  858
  the fertile lands of the Tokar Delta were seized and re-distributed, and are now forced to pay taxes to the Egyptian Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): The Proclamation was issued nearly two years before the re-occupation of Tokar, and applied to a state of affairs which was completely modified by the latter event. The tax of 20 P.T. per acre imposed upon the Tokar lands is intended to cover the cost of seed supplied to the cultivators and construction works for the regulation of the water supply and other purposes. The lands were not re-distributed except so far as a natural re-distribution was caused by the alteration of the watercourses, which frequently occurs.
  MR. BRYCE: Will the hon. Gentleman present any Papers on the subject?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The hon. Member will find considerable information on the subject in the Papers which have recently been presented in the shape of a Report from Sir Evelyn Baring.
  MR. BRYCE: Is it intended to present any Papers?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: It is not intended to present any Papers, but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes any particular information and will mention it to me I will endeavour to give him what he requires.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: What proportion will go for seed and what proportion for public works?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I cannot say that without notice or without asking the Egyptian Government.

  MINING ROYALTIES.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the amounts of royalties now charged upon the production of gold and silver in each of the Australian Colonies respectively; what is the charge to individual miners for miners' rights to work for gold and silver in each of such Colonies; has the legal estate of the Crown been assigned to or abrogated in favour of the various

  859
  Colonial Governments, or has merely the control and management of the Mines Royal of the Crown been assigned to them; does the Crown derive any royalties or other direct pecuniary advantages from the production of gold and silver in the Colonies referred to, and, if so, what sum is being paid yearly; and, if the Crown has any rights by virtue of its prerogative in the Australian Colonies, why are they not insisted upon as in the cases of Wales and Ireland?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Royalties are not charged in the Australian Colonies upon the production of gold and silver, but a miner's right is granted for a yearly fee of from 5s. to 10s., and leases of auriferous lands are given at a yearly rental per acre of from. 5s. to 20s. The hon. Member will find full particulars in the Acts of the several Australian Colonies relating to gold mining, which he can see either in the Library of the House or at the Colonial Office. The hon. Member does not distinguish in the last part of his question between the rights of the Crown in this country and its rights in the Colonies. The waste lands in the Colonies belong to the Crown, but the Colonial Legislatures have been empowered to make laws regulating the sale and disposal of them, and the provisions to which I have referred are contained in the laws passed under his authority. The fees and rentals collected on behalf of the Crown are appropriated to the service of Her Majesty in the several Colonies.

  DEFICIENT SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to a letter written to the Birkenhead News of 26th March, 1892, by Mr. Hugh Williams complaining that he has applied to three schools, without success, for admission for his child; whether he will cause the facts stated by Mr. Williams to be inquired into; and whether, seeing that the Census shows that there is an actual deficiency of school accommodation in Birkenhead of over 800 places, which will be still further increased owing to the
  860
  recent condemnation by Her Majesty's Inspector of two of the existing schools, the Education Department will take immediate steps to have this deficiency supplied?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: By the courtesy of the hon. Member I have seen Mr. Williams' letter, but inquiry has up to this date failed to elicit any evidence that children are on the whole not attending school properly, and I have reason to believe that the pressure upon certain schools is, in consequence of the representations of the Department, in a fair way of being removed by the provision of additional accommodation. A scheme is also on foot to build new schools sufficient to provide for the estimated increase of population during the next decennial period, and in connection with this movement the Wesleyans have undertaken to re-open their old school in the summer with modern improvements.
  MR. PICTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman inquired into the case of Hugh Williams?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: We have inquired generally, and, as I said, can learn nothing to show that there are many such instances. But I may say that though in most parts of the district there is ample accommodation, there are others where the accommodation is not sufficient.

  THE "INFANTRY DRILL."
  VISCOUNT NEWARK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, as the new "Infantry Drill" provides for only one major in a battalion, the junior majors of battalions of the Reserve Forces will be obliged to resign their commissions; or, if not, what arrangement can be made for retaining these officers?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: In the Regular Forces the Majors (except the one who is second in command) are company commanders, and in the new "Infantry Drill" it is only necessary to define the position of three mounted officers—namely, the commanding officer of the battalion, the second in command, and the adjutant. There is no suggestion that the junior majors of

  861
  battalions of Militia and Volunteers should resign. Their duties would naturally be defined by their commanding officer.

  LIMERICK POST OFFICE.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he has received a memorial, numerously and influentially signed, requesting the establishment of a branch post office in the neighbourhood of Sarsfield Street, in the City of Limerick; and whether he can accede to the request of the memorial?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: There was such a memorial in regard to a town sub-office in Brunswick Street, but I understand that this is otherwise called Sarsfield Street, and it was decided that the existing facilities were sufficient.

  THE CASE OF MRS. MONTAGU.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the attention of the Government has been directed to the recent trial in Ireland of a Scotchwoman, named Mrs. Montagu, for cruelly torturing her child to death; and whether he can inform the House why the further charges of cruelty alleged to have been perpetrated by the same woman were dropped, and a nolle prosequi entered? I should like to supplement this by asking the right hon. Gentleman if he can inform the House whether there is any method by which this monster of cruelty——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Can be prevented from torturing her children when she is released from prison?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The rule to be observed in putting a question which is on the Paper must also be observed when putting a question which is not on the Paper.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): This case has received throughout my careful attention. The further charges of cruelty referred to in the question have not been finally dropped. I am informed by the Solicitor General for Ireland, who conducted the prosecution, that, having regard to the evidence in the posses-
  862
  sion of the Crown at the time of the trial, he did not consider it advisable to proceed with the charges of ill-treatment by Mrs. Montagu of her male children, Austen, Walter, and Gilbert. The course which he took enables the Crown to bring forward those charges again, should further evidence be available. Having regard to the fact that those charges are still pending against Mrs. Montagu, the House will see that it would be wrong for me to enter any further into the details of this case.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Who is responsible for the preparation of the case?
  MR. MADDEN: The case, in one sense, is prepared by the Crown Solicitor, but the form it assumes is largely dependent on the material which is laid before him.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether it was by his instructions that Catholic jurors to the number of 17 were challenged at this trial?
  MR. MADDEN: I have no information whatever, or means of information, as to the religion of the jurors who were challenged by the prisoner, or of the smaller number, as I observe, who were ordered to stand aside by the Crown. I may mention, as the case has excited considerable interest, that this prisoner was originally returned for trial at Londonderry Assizes, but at my instance the venue was changed to the County of Dublin in order that it may take place where the trial could not possibly be affected by local feeling or prejudice of any kind. It was there tried before a Special Jury of the City of Dublin, presided over by, perhaps, the most capable and experienced Judge on the Irish Bench.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, having regard to the feeling of horror which this case has excited amongst every class and every sect in Ireland, he does not suppose that Catholics who were summoned to attend this trial would regard it as an abominable slur upon them——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. T. M. HEALY: That 17 of them were ordered to stand aside?
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to proceed with the prosecution of the governess?
  MR. MADDEN: That is a different question.
  MR. JOHNSTON: Did the right hon. Gentleman receive a letter from a Roman Catholic priest testifying to the purity and piety of Mrs. Montagu?
  MR. CONYBEARE: May I ask whether, considering the extraordinary severity of the sentence on the girl Fanny Gane——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is an improper question to put.
  An hon. MEMBER: It is very hard on the poor woman.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is not permissible to question the decision of a Judge in that manner.
  MR. NORRIS: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether, with reference to such cases as that of Mrs. Montagu, he will consider the expediency of introducing a Bill empowering the Public Prosecutor to intervene and take further proceedings in the public interest where indictments of a criminal nature have been withdrawn, and to do so notwithstanding conviction upon any other charge.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: The hon. Member will remember that Mrs. Montagu's case arose in Ireland. So far as England is concerned, the regulations already in force relating to the office of Public Prosecutor are, in my opinion, sufficient.

  ORDNANCE SURVEY.
  MR. PICKARD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is a fact that where the population is over 4,000 the Ordnance Survey shall be made on a scale of 1–500 free of cost; if so, whether he can state why the Director General of the Ordnance Survey has declined to make such survey in the parish of Rothwell, in Yorkshire?
  MR. RITCHIE: Surveys on the 1–500 scale are only made free of cost in the case of compact towns having a population of over 4,000, and not in the case of districts in which the population is scattered over a consider-
  864
  able area. It was for this reason that the Director General of the Ordnance Survey declined to make a survey on the scale referred to in the parish of Rothwell, in Yorkshire.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN IRELAND.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state in how many cases have the Irish Local Government Board exercised their statutory powers under the Labourers (Ireland) Act in proceeding with schemes for erection of labourers' cottages in regard to which no effective action had been duly taken by the Boards of Guardians concerned?
  MR. JACKSON: Since the passing of the Act referred to in August last, the Local Government Board have received complaints against Boards of Guardians in three cases only. In one of these cases the Guardians have made an improvement scheme; in the second the question is to be considered at a special meeting of the Guardians to be held on the 19th inst., and as regards the third the Local Government Board are at present in communication with the Guardians.

  THE COUNCIL OF JUDGES.
  MR. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any Report has been made by the Council of Judges, and when it will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No Report has yet been received from the Council of Judges.

  THE ANNUAL TRADE RETURNS.
  MR. HOLDEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when the annual statement of the trade of the United Kingdom with foreign countries and British Possessions for the year 1891 will be issued; and whether some means cannot be adopted to have this Return presented in future earlier in the Session?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): It is expected that the annual statement of trade for 1891 will be issued early next month. The

  865
  date of publication has been accelerated in recent years, and I hope next year will show a further improvement.

  MILITIA SUBALTERNS.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the result of the examination of Militia Subalterns for commissions in the Army, held on the 16th and 17th March, will be made known?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: It is expected that the result will be promulgated during the Easter Recess.

  THE CONSTRUCTION OF FISHERY PIERS AND BOAT SLIPS IN IRELAND.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the amount at present in the hands of the Board of Works available for the erection of fishery piers and boat slips; also the amount the Congested Districts Board have in hand for the same purpose?
  MR. JACKSON: I am informed that the only amount in the hands of the Board of Works in Ireland for the erection of fishery piers and harbours is a balance of £2,629 under the Sea Fisheries Act of 1883; but this has been allocated to the extension of Clogher Head Pier. There is no portion of the funds of the Congested Districts Board specially ear-marked for piers or boatslips.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government received a memorial last year from the fishermen and other residents on the south side of Dingle Bay praying for the construction of fishery piers and boatslips at Coonana and Croom-Croun Harbours; whether he is aware that on several occasions the fishermen when launching their boats are obliged to wade up to their middle to try and save their boats from being broken, and remain in their wet clothes all the long cold nights fishing, with the result that the strongest and most robust constitutions quickly succumb; whether he is aware that Sir Thomas Brady in March last year visited these places, and strongly recommended the erection of boatslips; and whether,
  866
  having regard to the necessity that exists for the construction of these works, the Government intend to carry into effect the prayer of the memorialists?
  MR. JACKSON: The replies to the inquiries in the first and third paragraphs are in the affirmative. There are no funds at the disposal of the Irish Government which would enable the prayer of the memorialists to be carried into effect, and the memorialists were so informed.
  MR. KILBRIDE: As the Congested Districts Board meet next week, will this matter be brought under their notice?
  MR. JACKSON: I will bring the matter before that Board.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what decision have the Board for the Congested Districts arrived at in reference to the memorials and resolutions from various localities in West Clare which some time since were referred to them?
  MR. JACKSON: The County of Clare does not come within the definition of a Congested Districts County as contained in the 36th section of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, and there is, therefore, no power to schedule as congested the localities referred to. The applicants have been so informed by the Congested Districts Board.

  ENNISKILLEN POST OFFICE.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if his attention has been called to the state of the post office in Enniskillen; and if he will appoint a competent engineer and inspector to examine and report if the structure, fittings, and conditions are in harmony with the requirements of the town and age?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am assured that the post office at Enniskillen is in all respects suitable as regards structure, fittings, and conditions, and is in harmony with the requirements of the town. Under these circumstances a special examination does not seem to be necessary.

  MILITARY HEADQUARTERS, ENNISKILLEN.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what are the specific military or other grounds on which the Government have decided to remove headquarters from Enniskillen to Derry; have the Government yet purchased land in Deny on which they contemplate erecting military barracks, or are they only looking for it; if they do obtain ground, will they erect sufficient new accommodation for all the soldiers that may from time to time be stationed in Derry, and will the present old barracks there be disused for military purposes; if the old barracks be still used, will the new erection be for headquarters and the old for the men; and if the Government have been offered ground at Enniskillen on which to erect new barracks much cheaper than they can procure it in Derry?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: It is not desirable to state in detail the military reasons for changing the position of troops; but under all the circumstances of this case the Commander of the Forces in Ireland considered Londonderry in every way a more suitable station than Enniskillen for the headquarters of a battalion. The answer to the second paragraph of the question is, No. The remaining questions are mainly hypothetical, and are dependent on circumstances which have not yet arisen. I am, therefore, unable to answer them.

  SCATTERY ISLAND.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the grounds on which the authorities dismantled the forts on Scattery Island, at the mouth of the Shannon; and if they will not erect new forts west of Kilrush, will they restore the old forts, with modern and efficient armaments, on Scattery?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I answered the hon. Member's question on the 11th May last year; my answer then being to the effect that the works on Scattery Island were obsolete, and it was not considered necessary to re-construct them in view of far more pressing services.

  SCHOOL GRANTS IN IRELAND.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what amount (approximately) out of the school grant for the current year would be applicable to each of the seven objects defined in the Schedule to the Irish Education Bill—namely, augmentation of class salaries of teachers; augmentation of salaries of assistant teachers; capitation grants to schools not having teachers paid by class salaries; bonus to each male assistant teacher of a certain standing and class; corresponding bonus to female assistant teachers; third-class salaries to teachers of small schools; and capitation grant in respect of schools the teachers of which receive salaries or other money payments from the Commissioners of Education?
  MR. JACKSON: I shall be much obliged if the hon. Gentleman will put down his question for to-morrow, and I will telegraph for information. I have a certain rough calculation, but I would rather give it as approximately correct.
  MR. SEXTON: I would rather receive it in that form, and therefore I will postpone it.

  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, BELFAST.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what steps have been taken to provide the medical students of Queen's College, Belfast, with a Summer Session for dissection?
  MR. JACKSON: The President of the Queen's College, Belfast, reports that no application for a Summer Session in anatomy has been made to the authorities of the College, nor, in his opinion, is such a Session necessary.
  MR. SEXTON: If the application is made will it be considered?
  MR. JACKSON: I do not know that he has any power to consider it. I have told the hon. Member that in his opinion such Session is not necessary.
  DR. TANNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Summer Sessions are quite ordinary?
  MR. JACKSON: Yes, Sir; but unnecessary, I understand.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Arising out of this question I wish to ask your ruling on a point of Order. Two or three days ago I handed a question to the Clerk at the Table addressed to the Chief Secretary, asking him why the authorities of Queen's College, Cork, interfered with the students and refused to allow them to take part in some athletic sports under the rules of the Gaelic Athletic Association, whilst a few days afterwards they were allowed to take part in a football match under Rugby rules. I was informed that the question was not permissible because this House has nothing to do with Queen's College——
  MR. SPEAKER: I recollect the question perfectly. I struck it out because I thought it was too utterly trivial to submit to the attention of the House.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Well, Sir, I shall put the question on the first opportunity.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  THE CASE OF THOMAS BLACK.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to a petition forwarded to Lord Wolseley, and his lordship's reply on the 15th October, 1890, that it had been forwarded to the proper quarter, from an old soldier named Thomas Black, of the 21st Regiment, Royal North British Fusiliers, No. 3,645, who served in the Crimean campaign and engaged in four general battles there, and was one of three who brought Captain Nolan's horse, with the dead officer thereon, into the camp after the historic Charge of the Six Hundred, and who, having been frost-bitten and paralysed before Sebastopol, was discharged from Chatham at sixpence per day pension for one and a half years, at the expiry of which he understood it to be renewed during life; but, on threat of losing his pension, was compelled to re-enter the Service, was drafted to India, and served in the Mutiny, and was then discharged without pension; whether he is aware that Black is now disabled, and an inmate in the Enniskillen Workhouse, County Fermanagh; and whether, taking all the circumstances into consideration, the Depart-
  870
  ment will make some provision for this old soldier?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: As I stated last year, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for South Donegal, there are special difficulties in the case of Thomas Black. He served in the Crimea for seven months only, and was discharged as unfit for service with a pension of sixpence a day pending recovery. In July, 1857, his health was so well restored that he enlisted in the Royal Artillery, denying altogether his former service. After eleven years' service he was discharged with a bad character.

  RAILWAY BRAKES AND RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when the following will be distributed—namely, Return by the Railway Companies to the Board of Trade, in pursuance of "The Railway Returns (Continuous Brakes) Act, 1878," for the year ending 31st December, 1891, and General Report to the Board of Trade upon Accidents during the year 1891?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Brakes Return is in the hands of the printer. The General Report to the Board of Trade on Accidents cannot be presented until later in the year, because the figures relating to passenger journeys cannot be prepared before the end of June, and, if the Report were presented now, these figures would have to be estimated, or the comparisons (which are useful) would have to be omitted.

  GOLD MINES IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what number of tons of ore have been treated at the Morgan and Clonga Gold Mines respectively, from the time they last commenced work up to the present time; what is the total value of gold which has been extracted from the ore of such mines respectively; are any other mines in the United Kingdom, other than those referred to, producing gold; how many licences and leases exist at the present time for working gold and silver in the United Kingdom besides the two referred to;

  871
  how many of them are at work; and can any reason be ascribed why they are not all at work?
  MR. GOSCHEN: For answers to the first and second questions I would refer the hon. Member to the Reports of the Directors of the two mines. As regards the third, fourth, and fifth questions, I must ask for longer notice. The sixth question is too controversial to be answered across the Table of the House.

  SEARCHING PEOPLE IN THE STREETS.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Royal Irish Constabulary accost persons coming out of public-houses on Sundays who are known to be the friends and relations of the owners of public houses, and insist on putting such persons to the indignity of being searched in the public streets on suspicion of having bottles of drink concealed in their clothes; and whether he will give directions to the police to refrain from a course which may lead to a breach of the peace?
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member puts the question in such general terms that I cannot undertake to answer it. If he is aware of and will specify any particular case, I shall make the necessary inquiries.
  MR. MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to give him information?
  MR. JACKSON: If the hon. Member will give me any information either confidentially or otherwise, I shall be obliged.
  MR. MACNEILL: I will treat you confidentially.

  LAND PURCHASE IN IRELAND.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, in the case of the death of a tenant purchaser under the recent Land Purchase Acts, intestate, the land passes to the eldest son; and whether Succession Duty is claimed in all cases of administration of probate on the deaths of the new proprietors created under those Acts?
  MR. MADDEN: A tenant who purchases the freehold of his holding under
  872
  the Land Purchase Acts becomes subject to the ordinary law as regards Death Duties and descent on intestacy. From the latter, however, he is relieved as soon as his ownership is registered under the Local Registration of Title Acts of last year, which assimilates the law of succession to freeholds to that of chattel interests in land in the case of registered tenant purchasers.

  GRATUITIES TO WORKMEN ON DISMISSAL FROM GOVERNMENT FACTORIES.
  MR. HOZIER: On behalf of Mr. FORREST FULTON I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered Section 4 of "The Superannuation Act, 1887," which enables the Treasury to give to workmen discharged on reduction a gratuity after seven years' service; and whether he can hold out any hope that the present practice of confining such gratuities only to men of twelve years' service will be modified in favour of the workmen recently discharged on reduction from Enfield and the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The clause in the Superannuation Act to which reference is made is clearly permissive in its character, and it rests with the Treasury to lay down the conditions under which any such gratuities may be granted. A rule was accordingly laid down under which the cases of men under twelve years' service were not sent forward. I propose, however, in future to submit to the Treasury to be decided upon their merits all the cases of men of not less than seven years' service who leave the Ordnance Factories under the conditions mentioned in the Act, and this will apply to all men who have recently been discharged on reduction.

  ARMY REGULATIONS.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Colonel Anley, of the 69th Foot, has had his command extended on the ground that "the regiment is in a good state of discipline"; whether there is any precedent for extension of command on such a ground;

  873
  and will he explain why Colonel Keagh, of the 12th Foot, who was also complimented on the same ground as Colonel Anley, had not his command extended in like manner?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am sure the hon. Member will see that this is not a matter which can properly be discussed in Parliament. I may, however, state that Colonel Keagh was ineligible for continuance in his command on account of age.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to furnish me with any reference to Regulations or General Orders which recognise as a ground for extending a command that a regiment is in a good state of discipline, and would not a recognition of a principle of that kind debar subordinate officers from promotion?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I must ask for notice of that question.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Was there any special reason for consideration in the case to which I have referred?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, there was not.

  THE TRIAL OF DEEMING.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether, in the event of the man Deeming, alias Williams, charged with the murder of his wife at Perth, Western Australia, being found guilty there of the capital offence, he could be then taken to England and tried for the Rainhill murders, with which his name has been associated; is there any precedent; and whether he can cite a case?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I may say that no steps can be taken pending the proceedings in Australia, but in the event of those proceedings resulting in Deeming's discharge, there is power by the Act of Parliament to bring him for trial in this country.

  THE TRUCK ACTS.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether, in the absence of any written agreement, an employer has any legal right to deduct from his workpeople the rent of the houses in which they live; and whether such deduction is not a violation of the Truck Acts? I may
  874
  be allowed to say that I am not responsible for the appearance of this question on the Paper, because the Attorney General answered it on Tuesday. The hon. Gentleman has, however, asked me to repeat it, and that is why the question appears on the Paper.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: After I answered the question the other day, I looked at the last word of the section, and I think there is some doubt whether or not, in the absence of any written agreement, an employer has any legal right to deduct from his workpeople the rent of the houses in which they live. It is by no means clear; but my own opinion at present is that there is a doubt on the subject.
  MR. CREMER: I should like to ask on whose authority this question was put down?
  MR. SPEAKER: It was obviously carried over from a former day and put down under a misapprehension of the; hon. Gentleman's wishes.

  INHABITED HOUSE DUTY.
  SIR J. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether an Irish Member of Parliament, who has his usual place of residence in Ireland, and a residence in London only in respect to his Parliamentary duties, is liable to the payment of Inhabited House Duty in respect to such last-mentioned residence; and if there are any, and what, exemptions from such payments; and, if so, under what law or authority?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: In answer to the hon. Member, I have to say that Members of Parliament are not exempted under the circumstances mentioned from the payment of Inhabited House Duty, if, in fact, they are in occupation of a house liable to such payment.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now say whether he will arrange for the publication of the statistics collected by the Irish Land Commission as to prices, with abstracts and averages?
  MR. JACKSON: I have asked the Land Commission to prepare a

  875
  summary of the abstracts for presentation to the House.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when a Sub-Commission under the Land Acts will sit at Lisburn; and whether he is aware that arrangements for purchase are going forward in the neighbourhood, and that the fixing of judicial rents in such cases is a matter of urgent and pressing importance?
  MR. JACKSON: The Irish Land Commissioners report that the date of the next Sub-Commission sitting for Lisburn Union has not yet been fixed, but that it will probably be held when the cases listed for the 2nd May next from the Unions of Downpatrick and Newtownards have been disposed of.

  THE CATHOLIC CLERGY AND POOR LAW ELECTIONS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the recent occasion of the Poor Law Election for the Electoral Division of Annaduff, Carrick-on-Shannon Union, a Roman Catholic clergyman followed the police constable who left the voting papers from house to house, and superintended the filling up of the papers, and whether such action is legal?
  MR. JACKSON: The Local Government Board report that they have no knowledge of the circumstances alleged in the question.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in asking for presentments for extra police for the various counties at the forthcoming Assizes, he will make allowance for the several hundred men which he has admitted the country is now short of the free quota?
  MR. JACKSON: I have had the opportunity of making further inquiries on the subject of the allocation of the Royal Irish Constabulary to counties, and I find that wherever it becomes necessary to appoint an extra force to a county, the practice is to forthwith fill up any vacancies in the free quota
  876
  of that county, so as to give it its full normal establishment before it becomes liable to the charge for an extra force.

  RAILWAY TUNNELS.
  MR. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he would be willing to cause a Return to be made showing the number of tunnels on the lines of the several Railway Companies in the United Kingdom exceeding the length of 20 yards, in which no refuge in the wall of the arch or other contrivance is provided for the protection of men working in the tunnels from the danger of passing trains?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not think that the Return referred to would afford any useful information. It has been a requirement of the Board of Trade for 30 years that every tunnel on new lines submitted for inspection should be provided with refuges such as the hon. Member mentions. If the hon. Member has in his mind any special railway or tunnel about which he desires information, I shall be happy to procure it for him.

  MAIL SERVICES.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will assent to the Motion for a Return as to mail services which stands on today's Paper?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): There is no correspondence which could with advantage to the public service be laid on the Table in the form of a Return.

  ANNUAL LEAVE IN THE CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT.
  MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that, with respect, to annual leave, the second division clerks of ten years' service and upwards in the Customs Department stand at a considerable disadvantage as compared with others of the same class in other public departments, with the exception of those in the Treasury and the Charity Commission; and whether there is any reason why a uniformity of prac-

  877
  tice in this matter should not prevail throughout the whole Civil Service.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I am not aware of the alleged disadvantage. The second division clerks of the Customs Department who have more than ten years' service enjoy the maximum annual leave allowed by the Order in Council of the 21st March, 1890. Departments have no power to vary the terms of that Order.

  THE MAWDDWY RAILWAY COMPANY.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Mawddwy Railway Company has issued a notice to suspend the whole traffic for an indefinite time, on the allegation that extensive repairs are required; whether he is aware that this suspension will cause the stoppage of four slate quarries, and throw a considerable number of men out of employment; and whether he will inquire whether the repairs are such as to necessitate this serious loss to the locality?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have been in communication with the Railway Company since notice of the hon. Member's question has appeared. I am informed that the stoppage is brought about in consequence of the unsafe condition of the Cemmes River bridge, that the Company have no funds out of which to pay for the necessary repairs, and that the only way of meeting the expenditure is by loan, to be repaid by a special rate of 1s. 3d. a ton. It is not obligatory on traders to agree to such special rate, nor is it obligatory on the Company to continue to work the line.

  PENSIONS OF RURAL POSTMEN.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether there is a pension scale for rural postmen in Ireland; what is the age, number of years' service, and pension on retirement; and what pension is a man entitled to who has given 35 years' service, and whose wages are now 17s. per week?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Rural postmen, like other Civil Servants, come under the provisions of the Superannuation
  878
  Act, 1859. Except in case of infirmity, mental or bodily, no one can be pensioned under the age of 60. In that, case the number of years' service regulates the pension. For 35 years' service at 17s. a week it would be £25 17s. 0d., being one-sixtieth of his pay for each year of service.

  IRISH LANDED PROPRIETORS.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table a Return of the number of landed proprietors in Ireland owning more than 100 acres, classified according to residence, and showing the extent and value of the property held by each class, in the same form as the Return ordered and printed in 1872?
  MR. JACKSON: I have no objection to give the Return which the right hon. Gentleman asks for. I think it will probably take some time to prepare, and I suppose it will follow the precise form of the Return ordered and printed in 1872.

  THE COLOUR VISION COMMITTEE.
  SIR H. ROSCOE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state when the Report of the Colour Vision Committee, appointed at his request by the Royal Society, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have communicated with the Chairman of the Colour Vision Committee to which the hon. Member refers, and I understand that he expects that the Committee will report to the Royal Society at the end of the present month. So soon as the Report reaches me, I shall lose no time in laying it upon the Table of the House.

  THE MERCHANT SHIPPING AMEND- MENT BILL.
  COLONEL HILL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it has been correctly reported that upon the occasion of a recent deputation to him respecting the Merchant Shipping Amendment Bill, 1892, an assertion was made that there

  879
  was no doubt in "many cases, as had been proved in many Commissions and Committees," the food supplied in certain merchant vessels was of the "worst possible description"; and whether this statement is correct; and, if so, whether he will give the dates of the many Commissions and Committees?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I believe the assertion quoted in my hon. Friend's question was made at the deputation referred to, but, as I did not make it myself, I cannot say what Commissions and Committees were referred to. Returns on the subject of the health of the crews were presented to the House in 1876, 1879, and 1883. Since then there has been a great decrease in the number of outbreaks of scurvy, the number reported diminishing from 99 in 1881 to 13 in 1891. I am glad also to add that these outbreaks have diminished in severity as well as in number.

  "COUNTS OUT" ON TUESDAYS AND FRIDAYS.
  MR. MCLAREN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the "Counts Out" which frequently take place on Tuesdays and Fridays when Private Members' Motions are down for discussion, he will propose to alter the Standing Orders affecting those days, so that Private Members' Bills may take precedence of Notices of Motions on Tuesdays, and so that on Fridays more than one Motion can be brought forward, and a division taken on each?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Without expressing any opinion on the advantage or disadvantage likely to arise from the suggested alteration of the Rules, I do not think this is a convenient moment for proposing an alteration in the Standing Orders of the House.

  THE CAVAN UNION.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now say what decision has been arrived at in the matter of the proposal to indemnify the Cavan Union against the loss in the case of "Ryan v.
  880
  the Union," caused by the action of the Government Inspector?
  SIR JOHN GORST: No decision has yet been arrived at.

  THE CHICAGO EXHIBITION.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Attorney General when he will be in a position to state whether the increased grant for the Chicago Exhibition has been sanctioned; and, in that event, what portion of it will be devoted to Ireland? The hon. Baronet also asked the Attorney General if he will state whether inquiries have been made in Ireland with a view to obtaining evidence of the desire of Irish exhibitors to be separately represented at the Chicago Exhibition; and, if so, what has been the result of these inquiries; and if the Government will consent to hand over Ireland's proportion of the grant allowed for the expenses of the Chicago Exhibition Commission to a committee of Irishmen, who will be accepted by the Irish public as representative of Irish industry, and who will be empowered to take whatever steps may be necessary for the separate representation of Irish industry at the World's Fair?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I am not yet in a position to state whether an increased grant has been sanctioned for the Chicago Exhibition. I have already informed the hon. Baronet that the Commission are consulting Irish exhibitors as to the best method of dealing with their exhibits at the Exhibition. The Commission have no power, and certainly would not be entitled, to hand over any portion of the grant to a committee, as suggested by the hon. Baronet's last question.

  IRISH FISHING BOATS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is a fact, as announced by the Rev. Mr. Green, Fishery Commissioner, in his recent communication to the Congested Districts Board, "that two fishing boats have been built in the Isle of Man for the Board"; whether these boats could have been as well built for the Board at Passage Docks, Carrigaloe,

  881
  Cork Harbour, or at Arklow; whether he is aware that several fishing boats recently built at the two first-mentioned places, assisted by public subscription raised in Cork, are now considered the fastest, most handy, and best sea-going fishing smacks in the Kinsale fishing fleet, which numbers hundreds, including Manx, Cornish, and French vessels; and whether, if more fishing vessels are to be built for the Board, a further attempt will be made to encourage Irish industry by employing the Cork Harbour and Arklow shipwrights, to relieve Irish wants by Irish labour?
  MR. JACKSON: The two fishing boats referred to were built not for the Congested Districts Board, but for Miss Mansfield. They were obtained as a special type for Connemara unskilled crews. When others of this type are required the Inspector is of opinion that it would be possible to obtain them not only in Cork and Arklow, but also in the County Galway.

  MARRIAGES OF NONCONFORMISTS.
  MR. LEGH: I beg to ask the Attorney General if there is any probability of his introducing a Bill dealing with the attendance of Registrars at the marriages of Nonconformists?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I do not propose to deal with this subject during the present Session. I should be glad if I could see my way to deal with the matter and simplify the law on the subject.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON MINING ROYALTIES.
  MR. PAULTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can give any information as to when the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties expect to issue their Report?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have inquired into this matter, and I learn from the Secretary to the Commission that he cannot fix any date for certain upon which they expect to issue their Report; but it is not likely to be issued before July.
  MR. PAULTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Commission will take any further evidence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not been able to make inquiries on that subject, but I shall be very glad to do so if the hon. Gentleman desires it.

  DEVONPORT DOCKYARD.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether it is a fact that the Civil Adviser of the Devonport Dockyard, Mr. Wildish, has issued a notice or circular, dated 23rd March, which states—
  "23rd March, 1892.
  Please arrange that in future no stoppage of machinery for cleaning takes place on Saturday, the ordinary work of the yard going on till bell-ringing as on other days. Should experience show that this is prejudicial to the Service in any way, a Report is to be forwarded. This will, of course, not relieve the officers and men of responsibility for keeping the machinery thoroughly effective. Any necessary cleaning, &c, should be done from time to time as required."
  I wish to ask him whether it is not a fact that the rule that has hitherto been in force has been that all employees should have half an hour or three-quarters of an hour for the purpose of carrying out the cleaning, and that the machinery should be stopped a given time for that purpose; whether such rule is not obligatory under the provisions of the Factory Acts, which provide that no machinery shall be cleaned whilst working; and whether, if it is found that the circular in question is a breach of the Factory Acts, it will be at once withdrawn?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The rule in question is one which the Admiralty Superintendent had power to issue, and, so far as I know, it does not contravene any portion of the Factory Acts, and, therefore, I do not propose to interfere in the matter.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Will the noble Lord state whether he will cause inquiry to be made on the point whether it is a breach of the Factory Acts, and whether I am to understand that Her Majesty's Dockyard authorities are above the Factory Acts themselves?
  [No reply was given.]

  THE PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. J. C. BOLTON: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state whether the Second Reading of the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill will be taken before or after Easter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I see no prospect of its being taken before Easter.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR)—BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
  Order read, for the attendance of Mr. John William Maclure, a Member of this House, and of Mr. James Frederick Buckley, Mr. William Bailey Hawkins, and Mr. John Conacher.
  MR. SPEAKER: Is it your pleasure that these gentlemen be called in? I have to ask, first, whether the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stretford Division of South East Lancashire is in his place?
  Mr. JOHN WILLIAM MACLURErose in his place at the Front Bench below the Gangway on the Ministerial side of the House amidst cries of "Order, order!" bowed to the Chair, and remained standing.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Will the Serjeant-at-Arms see that Mr. James Frederick Buckley, Mr. William Bailey Hawkins, and. Mr. John Conacher do appear at the Bar.
  The Bar being then drawn, the Serjeant-at-Arms escorted thereto the three gentlemen named, who made their obeisance to the Chair.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Mr. John William Maclure, you have been ordered to attend in your place, and you, Mr. James Frederick Buckley, Mr. William Bailey Hawkins, and Mr. John Conacher, have been summoned to appear at the Bar of this House in consequence of a Special Report made by a Committee of this House. That Committee was appointed to inquire into the hours of labour of railway servants, and in the course of their in-
  884
  quiry it came to their knowledge that allegations were made that certain persons had been reduced or dismissed from the service of the Company in consequence of the evidence they had given before the Committee. The other cases were dismissed by the Committee, after inquiry, as being unfounded; but in the case of one person, John Hood, the Committee found that he was dismissed by the Company mainly in consequence of charges arising out of the evidence given by him before the Committee. You, Mr. John Conacher, laid the evidence (so the Committee have found) before the Directors of the Company, and you, the Directors of the Company who are now present (so the Committee have found), when John Hood asked for a re-hearing of the case, called him to account, and you censured him for the evidence which he gave before the Committee, in a manner calculated to deter other railway servants from giving evidence before a Committee of this House. I believe it is the wish of the House to hear anything that any of you may now say in answer to these findings of the Committee.
  MR. JOHN WILLIAM MACLURE: Mr. Speaker, Sir, on behalf of my friends as well as myself, I wish to say that you were good enough on Tuesday, in answer to the hon. Member for West Newington (Mr. Radcliffe Cooke), to say that the House would like to hear us in order that we might advance anything in excuse or mitigation of the action which is charged against us by the Select Committee. I am reading your own words, Mr. Speaker. Availing myself of the indulgence of the House, I beg to state that in taking the course referred to we acted entirely in what we believed to be the discharge of our duties as Trustees of the Company and for the general interests of the public. We had certainly not at any time the slightest intention of deterring any railway servants from giving evidence before your Committee, and should we, by the course we adopted, have unintentionally infringed any Rules or Privileges of this House, we ask this honourable House to accept the fullest expression of our unqualified

  885
  regret. I may say, in addition to that, that I very much regret that I had not the privilege of giving my evidence before the Committee myself. I had applied to give my evidence, and I hope the House will accept our apology: it is tendered to the House in the fullest manner.
  MR. SPEAKER: Has any other gentleman anything to say to the House?
  (5.26.) Mr. JAMES FREDERICK BUCKLEY: Mr. Speaker, I beg to say that I fully concur in what has fallen from my colleague the hon. Member for the Stretford Division of South East Lancashire. I thank you.
  MR. SPEAKER: You will now withdraw from the Bar.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Mr. Speaker, is it competent for me to ask one question before these gentlemen withdraw—a question which, if necessary, may be put to them by you from the Chair—whether they would be disposed to re-instate the man whom they dismissed?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is quite outside the present subject which the House has to consider. You will now, gentlemen, withdraw from the Bar.
  The gentlemen at the Bar then withdrew. Mr. Maclure also left the House.
  MR. CREMER: May I ask a question?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Sir M. Hicks Beach.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): In the observations I shall address to the House I shall endeavour to confine myself within what appear to me to be the necessary limits of the matter which has come before us to-day. It is undoubtedly an important question of the breach of the Privileges of this House, and I am sure the House will approach it in a spirit of judicial gravity; not desiring to deal vindictively with those who have offended against its Privileges; but determined, on the other hand, to maintain the Privileges
  886
  which are essential not only in the interests of this House, but in the interests of the whole community. Now, Sir, the pith of the Report of the Committee is to be found, as you have stated to the House, in two sentences of the same paragraph. These sentences differ widely in their purport. The first sentence is as follows:—
  "That John Hood was dismissed from the service of the Cambrian Railway Company mainly in consequence of charges arising out of the evidence given by him before the Select Committee on the Hours of Labour of Railway Servants."
  Sir, I believe it has been amply established by a succession of long-continued precedents that any molestation, threats, or legal proceedings against any witness examined before this House, or before any Committee of this House, in consequence of the evidence given by him, is a distinct breach of our Privileges; and I need hardly say that the dismissal of a servant must necessarily be included in the term "molestation." But I wish to call the attention of the House to a matter which is not solely a verbal difference. I have said it is an undoubted breach of the Privileges of this House that a witness should be injured in consequence of his evidence. But the Committee have not reported that this has occurred. The Committee have reported that this man was dismissed, not in consequence of his evidence, but mainly in consequence of charges arising out of the evidence given by him; and any hon. Member who looks carefully through the proceedings of the Committee and through the evidence that has been reported to the House will see that this is not a verbal difference alone. I would speak on this subject with great diffidence. There are hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House far better qualified than I am to express a view as to what is or what is not a breach of Privilege. But I would venture to express some doubt whether the action of this House in this matter could safely be founded on the dismissal of a witness in consequence of charges arising out of his evidence. The point is one which materially affects this matter. The hon. Member for Stretford and the

  887
  persons who have just appeared at the Bar have stated to this House that, in dismissing John Hood, they acted, in their belief, as trustees for their shareholders, and in the interest of the public. Now, Sir, a great deal of evidence, as the House is aware, was given before the Committee by the Chairman and by the Manager of the Company in support of the proposition that Hood's dismissal was necessary in the interests of the Company and of the public, because inquiries which were made as the result of his evidence had disclosed conduct on his part which proved him to be an unworthy servant. Perhaps I may say in passing, as Chairman of the Committee, that if we had understood that the hon. Member for Stretford really desired to have been examined, we should certainly have given him the opportunity. However, much evidence, as I have said, was given on that point. Now, the Committee considered that it was their duty to report to the House what had occurred in this matter with respect to the dismissal of this person, but they did not conceive it to be their duty to decide whether that dismissal could be excused or justified by any argument such as was addressed to them in evidence, and as has just now been addressed to the House; but they did make this very significant addition to their Report. They said they had not
  "Deemed it to be part of their duty to express any opinion as to how far the conduct of the said John Hood, and the irregularities disclosed by his evidence, as well as the character of his evidence, were calculated properly to forfeit the confidence of the Directors of the Cambrian Railway Company."
  Now, that pointedly called the attention of this House, as judges of this case, to this aspect of the question. I do not propose to ask the House to decide whether or not John Hood was a trustworthy servant of the Cambrian Railway Company. I will not, unless I am forced, express any opinion of my own upon that point, but this I will venture to say—that it is my strong belief that, in dismissing John Hood, the Directors of the Cambrian Company honestly and bonâ fide believed that he was not a
  888
  trustworthy servant of the Company. Sir, if this House is to censure the Directors of a railway for dismissing a servant in the responsible position of a station master, who, in their opinion, is not a trustworthy servant, in my humble judgment, this House would be simply assuming the responsibility for the conduct of the affairs of that railway. Now I turn, Sir, to the second part, and in my view by far the most important part, of the Report of the Select Committee. The Select Committee reported, in the second place, that the persons who have appeared at the Bar, and the hon. Member for Stretford, called John Hood to account and censured him for the evidence he gave before the Committee in a manner calculated to deter other railway servants from giving evidence before the Committee. Sir, there can be no question that this is a distinct breach of the Privileges of this House. The fact is undoubted, and I would submit that the question for the House to decide with regard to it is really only how it should be dealt with. Now, let me allude to what has been said to the House by the hon. Member for Stretford on his own behalf and on behalf of the persons who have appeared at the Bar. I think it will not be denied that they have made the fullest and most ample apology for what they have done that could have been made by any persons placed in such circumstances. What have they said? They have, in the first place, disclaimed any intention to deter any railway servant from giving any evidence before the Committee. Well, Sir, I should like to add that as a matter of fact no railway servant will be so deterred, for this simple reason, that the Committee consider that they have sufficient evidence of this kind—("Oh!")—before them upon which to base their Report, and do not intend to call any further evidence either from the Railway Companies or their employees on the main question referred to them; and further, Sir, after the way in which that observation has been met, I think it is only just that I, as Chairman of the Committee, should say that the Railway Companies generally ought not to be included in any condemnation that may be passed on the

  889
  action of the Directors of the Cambrian Railway Company. More than 30 railway servants last year were called before this Committee. The great majority of them gave evidence directly contrary to the opinions and feelings of the Directors and Managers of the Railways on which they were employed. Scores of railway servants very properly gave information to the secretaries of their societies as to the long hours they work, and other matters connected with their employment. All these matters were given in evidence by the secretaries of those societies, and were subsequently sifted and replied to by the Directors or Managers of the different Railway Companies. Yet, Sir, in only four out of all these cases has there been the slightest allegation of any improper action on the part of Railway Directors or Managers towards the servants who have given evidence before this Committee, and in only one case—that of John Hood—has any improper action been proved. I do not say this as bearing on this particular case, but I think it right to give that testimony with regard to the conduct of the Railway Companies generally. Now, what have the hon. Member for Stretford and the persons who have appeared at the Bar added to the disclaimer I have already quoted? They have expressed their unqualified regret for having unintentionally infringed any of the Rules or Privileges of this House. I repeat, Sir, that I do not think that a more complete apology could be offered to this House. But, Sir, I am not suggesting to the House that on the ground of this disclaimer or on the ground of this apology the breach of our Privileges which has been committed should be passed over without further notice. I do feel that we are bound, and especially in a case of this kind, to maintain this important Privilege for the benefit of the country. And why do I say especially in a case of this kind? The evidence in this particular inquiry, Sir, is closed; but it may be the pioneer of many similar inquiries into the relations between employers and employed in other great industries of the country; and it is obviously essential to the proper conduct of any such
  890
  inquiries that those who are employed should be satisfied that the rights and Privileges of this House will be maintained with respect to any evidence they may give. Therefore, Sir, it appears to me that while, for the reasons I have ventured to place before the House, this is not a case for punishment, yet it is a case requiring the notice of the House in such a way as shall be a warning for the future; and, therefore, Sir, I conclude by proposing; the Resolution which I will now read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House, while recognising that Mr. John William Maclure, Mr. James Frederick Buckley, Mr. William Bailey Hawkins, and Mr. John Conacher have disclaimed any intention to deter any railway servant from giving evidence before its Committee, and have expressed their unqualified regret for having unintentionally infringed any of its Rules and Privileges, is of opinion that the said Mr. John William Maclure, Mr. James Frederick Buckley, Mr. William Bailey Hawkins, and Mr. John Conacher have committed a breach of the Privileges of this House, in their action towards John Hood, and that they be called in and admonished by Mr. Speaker for the breach of Privilege that they have committed."—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.)
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I wish to move an Amendment. I think the House has heard, and that the country will read, with profound dissatisfaction the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just delivered, and that both will universally condemn the Motion with which his speech was concluded. What, Mr. Speaker, are the facts of the case? The right hon. Gentleman said that the hon. Member for Stretford and his colleagues have made a full and ample apology. I listened with great care and attention to what the hon. Member for Stretford said, and although I do not wish to say anything unkind of the hon. Gentleman, I must say that in my opinion his speech, instead of being one of regret, was an aggravation of the offence which has been committed. ("Oh, oh!") Hon. Members should hear me before pronouncing judgment. What did the speech of the Directors amount to? It amounted to this—that they committed the offence, that they mean to persevere in the offence, and that they

  891
  intend to maintain the punishment which they have inflicted upon this man because of his evidence and the talk about the charges arising out of it—that while they intend to maintain the punishment of this man, they hope to escape from their own punishment by the contemptible lip service of an apology in words. The right hon. Gentleman has told us what the Directors have said. We want to know what they are going to do. Now the right hon. Gentleman showed the necessity of preserving the Privilege of the House in such a matter as this, but he should have gone a good deal further. What is this House but a Grand Court of Appeal to the nation to which every afflicted man in the country should have the right of full and unrestrained appeal? And how can that full and unrestrained right of appeal be secured if every person gives his evidence with the halter of dismissal about his neck? The right hon. Gentleman has disclaimed any intention on the part of the Directors to interfere with the Privileges of the House; but it is to acts that we must look and not to words. A disclaimer on their part, and a perseverance in the offence is a mere empty insult to this House. It is clear that the hon. Member for Stretford and his fellow Directors have no intention to re-instate this man. The right hon. Gentleman says that workmen must be protected in giving evidence before Committees of this House. What protection are they going to get? The successors and colleagues of John Hood are reminded that if they give evidence the Directors will get a mere verbal condemnation and remonstrance from this House; but that John Hood will be left to starve. So that the whole point comes to this: that if the Directors get a formal and academic condemnation from this House they are at liberty to dismiss any man who gives evidence before any Committee of this House. Now, I think the House has heard the right hon. Gentleman's statement with dissatisfaction, and I propose to add words to the original Resolution.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Question, to add the words "and this House will not deem that the said Directors and Manager of the Cambrian

  892
  Railway have purged their contempt until they have re-instated John Hood in the position which he occupied before giving his evidence before this House, or otherwise compensated him."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. W. S. B. MCLAREN: I desire to move the substitution of the word "censure" for "admonish" in the original Motion, and if it is possible I think it should come before the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The proposition which the right hon. Gentleman has laid before the House is one which, if the House were to pass it unanimously, would at any rate vindicate the dignity of the House, and would clearly express its opinion with regard to these transactions; but, if the House will allow me, I will say a few words, with great respect, as to the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed that Resolution. I say with great respect, because the Committee has been presided over by the right hon. Gentleman with the greatest industry, with the greatest courtesy, and with the greatest fairness. I am bound, however, to say that I do not think the speech in which he introduced this Motion was adequate to the occasion—I am speaking now entirely of the matter, because the right hon. Gentleman's speeches are always in every way adequate both in manner and ability. Right hon. and hon. Members who listened to that speech would almost wonder why they were to pronounce a censure upon the Directors. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman insisted very much on the first part of the Resolution—with regard to the dismissal of Mr. Hood from causes arising out of the evidence, and I differ from him in the conclusions which he drew. I also think that he did not insist enough on the last part—as to the censure which was directed against Mr. John Hood by the Directors. I will detain the House for only a short time by stating the plain story of the case from the outset. The right hon. Gentleman was quite correct in saying

  893
  that the Cambrian Railway stands in a very different position to any other railway, and that the Cambrian Directors are in a different position to that of any other Railway Directors in the Kingdom; but most serious and gross revelations came to light with regard to the conduct of the Cambrian Railway Company in arranging the business hours of their men; and I would inform hon. Members, without making wearisome quotations from the evidence, that it was proved that for years several of their men had worked 36 hours at a stretch in the arduous business of signalling. That was not all——
  MR. A. E. GATHORNE-HARDY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order. I wish to ask you whether the right hon. Gentleman is in Order in anticipating the Report of the Committee as to the hours of labour, which they were not able to present?
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is in Order, so far as it bears on the case, in calling attention to anything that was placed before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly in Order in referring to it up to the day on which this gentleman was dismissed from his service.
  MR. A. E. GATHORNE-HARDY: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I rise again, to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is in Order in anticipating the decision of the Committee with regard to the question of the hours of labour in the case of the Cambrian or any other railway?
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman would not be in Order in anticipating the ultimate decision of the Committee as to the question of the hours of labour. That is not the Question before the House.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I shall confine myself strictly to matters which have already been reported to the House. Among other servants who were offered work was a young man of the name of Humphreys, and one of the gentlemen who was lately at the Bar of this House, Mr. Conacher, admits that Humphreys was worked regularly from 5.50 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily. Now this is of the essence of the whole question. These extreme
  894
  hours were brought to the notice of the Committee by a person of the name of Bather. This person is charged by the Directors with being hostile to them for certain reasons of his own; and the point I now wish to put before the House is that it was on account of this man's action, or supposed connection with Mr. Hood, that the gentleman in the position of Chairman of the Company got a feeling about him which he could not suppress when giving evidence before the Committee, and I believe it was one of the main reasons which led to his dismissal. Now I will read to the House an extract from the evidence of Mr. Buckley, the Chairman of the Company himself. The Chairman of the Committee asked Mr. Buckley (page 65)—
  "'Did you dismiss Mr. Hood solely on account of the pay-sheet matter, coupled with other matters of which you have told the Committee?'—'Yes, coupled with another matter, to which I do not desire to attach too much importance. It was not at all to be expected from a trusted servant of the Company. This man is not in the position of an ordinary servant or workman. He is an agent who has to take charge of and regulate the discipline amongst a number of men at his station. Therefore we looked upon him as our agent, and as being a person of trust. Now, I do not think that this letter which I have in my hand should have been written by a man in whom we put implicit confidence; for this reason—that it showed that he had neglected to report to his Directors the advances which had been made to him by a man named Bather, who gave evidence here, and who was notoriously an enemy of the Directors, because they had refused to give him a free pass over their line.'"
  Mr. Hood received a letter from Mr. Bather asking him about Humphreys, that is the young man who worked from 5.50 in the morning until 10 o'clock at night. Mr. Hood does not forward that letter, as he ought to have done, to his superiors; he says, "I threw it away, as I did not want to have anything to do with the matter." There is the letter, and I will read it to the House.
  "June 3, 1891.—Memorandum from Montgomery Station to J. Conacher, Esq., Euston Hotel, London. James Humphreys, late porter, Ellesmere. I return the statement to you with my remarks. Mr. Bather wrote to me a note asking me to give him information about the accident, but I did not reply to it, neither have I spoken to him about it. I threw the note away, as I did not want to have anything to do with the matter. I have thought the

  895
  matter very carefully over and tried my best to remember in order to give as correct information as I could to enable you to meet the case."
  Now, Sir, what does all this come to? Here are hours of labour of the most remarkable sort worked by railway men in the employment of a certain Company. The Committee which the House of Commons appointed to inquire into the long hours of railway servants would not have heard of the long hours worked upon this railway but for the fact that Mr. Bather, who lives on the spot, got up the case. I do not enter upon the question as to whether he had any quarrel with the Company, but we all know that we should not have known of these long hours being worked if Mr. Bather had not got up the case of these men and got several of them to give evidence. That is what Mr. Bather's enmity to the Company consists of. For my own part I am not sure it was enmity, for the Directors say that if they had only known that these long hours were being worked they would have put a stop to them, and I think, therefore, that Mr. Bather was not in this matter an enemy of the Company. Then you have a poor stationmaster, earning £70 a year, a man who by education is hardly above a working man, and because this man gets a letter from Bather and does not at once send it to his superiors, in the eyes of the Chairman of the Company he is disloyal, and it is alleged as a grave reason for dismissing him. Now, Sir, I say if this House wishes its Committees to arrive at any important evidence with regard to anything that concerns the working man it can only arrive at it by the evidence of the people who are concerned, and I say it will not be any disloyalty for a man to come forward and say he was employed for 30 hours on a stretch; and still less is it disloyalty for a man receiving a letter and being asked to assist in throwing light on this question and not at once sending it to his employers. That was the animus with which the Chairman of the Company was prepared to proceed against Mr. Hood. But, Sir, I want the House of Commons for one moment—for I do not believe the House is fully aware of it—to see what
  896
  Hood's evidence was. Mr. Conacher, the Manager, came up and gave evidence before the Committee on the Hours of Railway Servants; he gave evidence on various matters, and in the course of this evidence he made some by-the-way or incidental statements; and one of these statements was that Mr. Hood had not been punished for signing a memorial asking that a porter might not be dismissed. Afterwards he repeated this statement, and still later on he appears to have somewhat gone back from it. But there it was in black and white before the Committee. Mr. Hood was one of those men—you may say he was vain, you may say he was sensitive—but he felt very much indeed that a statement which he thought derogatory to him should be in black and white before the House, so he asked to be allowed to come up and to give evidence. He simply came up and contradicted the statement which Mr. Conacher made about him, and stated one or two things to which I will refer before sitting down. But so little did the Committee think his evidence of any importance that it may be fairly said he was not cross-examined at all. He was allowed to go away after making his statement, and the Committee gave little or no thought to his evidence. That was not the case with Mr. Conacher and the Directors. On the day before Hood went up to give evidence, which Mr. Conacher knew would be of a personal character about himself, and the quarrel between this powerful and leading servant who had the ear of the Directors and this roadside stationmaster—when, I say, Mr. Conacher knew that Hood was going up to give evidence before a House of Commons Committee, what did Mr. Conacher do? He wrote to a neighbouring Railway Company in order to get up a case of neglect of duty against Mr. Hood, a case of which, up to that time, they had taken very little notice, and a case which already was two years old. Mr. Hood left the Committee, he went back to his employment, and I venture to say there was not a Member of the Committee who gave his evidence another thought. We regarded him simply as an uneducated man who had been irritated about

  897
  certain things said about him, and we only felt that we gave up time we could ill-afford to waste in order to allow him to contradict them. It was otherwise with the Directors and Mr. Conacher. The Directors and Mr. Conacher not many days afterwards dismissed Mr. Hood. They dismissed him arbitrarily and summarily, and without giving him any reason whatever. I wish to leave certain topics for other hon. Gentlemen to deal with, but that is the question, as far as the actual dismissal was concerned, that I wish to insist on. Now I come to the very grave question of the censure. Mr. Hood applied to the Directors to be allowed to state his case, and the Directors had a meeting on the 30th September and gave him a hearing at Crewe. The gentlemen who were there present were those whom the House saw at the Bar—the hon. Member for Stretford, Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Conacher. I would like to ask whether hon. Members have read an account of that interview. All I can say is that they will find that it is a most characteristic, a most interesting, and in some respects a most amusing proceeding; but it is a proceeding of which the very gravest notice ought to be taken by this House; and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman insisted sufficiently upon what passed. Now, Sir, on page 36 of the Special Report particulars will be found. This man, half-educated, a man little above the status of a porter or an engine driver, is called into the presence of four gentlemen who had been, if they were not then, his employers, and there he stood among them, and what was the course of the procedure? Did they tell him why he was dismissed? No, they did not even tell him that. All they said was that he must explain and justify his evidence. He began to justify his evidence as such a man would do, giving an opening to them of which they were not slow to take advantage. Now, Sir, let hon. Members put themselves in that room and consider the sort of things said to this man by his employers; let them remember that they were talking so loudly and volubly that the shorthand writer said sometimes three or four of them were
  898
  talking at one time. The Chairman said to Hood—
  "It appears that the whole object you had was to screen the porter Humphreys, who was said to have been 44 hours on duty, to represent that the sleepers on the permanent way were rotten, and to explain the accident as due to the defective state of the permanent way."
  Another one of the Directors at the bottom of page 38 says—
  "Do you believe Stokes, and have you told the Committee a lie or unwittingly said what was untrue."
  On the next page one of the Directors said—
  "It is to screen Mr. Hood himself from a gross neglect of duty, and he had better say frankly that the replies to the Select Committee, giving the thing in the way which he did, were false?"
  This is the style in which these men were talking. There was not a word of kindness towards Hood, not a word said to put him at his ease. They all sat round saying these things in a manner that would have confused and disconcerted any one who had the best of cases. But, Sir, out of this meeting what was the result? There were three charges brought against Hood by the Directors in the course of his evidence, and on two of these charges I do not hesitate to say they laid themselves open to the censure of this House. These charges were nothing less than mere abuse on account of the course he took before the Committee. The first I will take was a mare's nest. It was a ridiculous charge that Hood had applied to the Clerk of our Committee for his railway fare home. There was no charge that he wanted to get two railway fares, or wanted more than his share of public or railway money; but the charge was that by making this application he wished to give our Committee the idea that he was not allowed to give evidence and would not get his fare from the Company. That was brought against him as a serious charge by the Directors. They said—"You went to the Committee Clerk to get money there by trying to show you could not get the money from Mr. Conacher." I need hardly say to the House that that produced no effect whatever on the minds of the

  899
  Committee. The next charge of the Directors made against this man was that he had said that on the occasion of a certain accident the sleepers on the line were rotten, and that the permanent way was defective. But it came out, from the evidence of Mr. Conacher himself, that at the time the accident took place this man had said these very words to Conacher himself. The idea was in his mind four years before the accident. When he came before the Committee the idea recurred to him; he said it quite incidentally, and there was little notice taken of it by any Member of the Committee. If you are to have witnesses dismissed for giving incidentally their views of a transaction four years before, which has nothing to do with these gross charges brought against the Cambrian Railway Company, you will never get working men to give evidence at all. Respecting the third charge, and the serious one, it came out in the course of time that Hood had confessed to charging night duty for one man, when, according to Conacher and the Directors, another man had been likewise doing the work. There is great confusion on this point, but one thing is clear, that Hood did not know this third man, Stokes, who was alleged by the Directors to have done the work that night, to have been in the station at all. What he did say was that Humphreys was working 44 hours on a stretch, and that he did allow a certain man, one Robinson, to stay up with him, that he returned this other man as the person who had done the work, whereas he was merely a companion of the other man. Now, Sir, I say here you have a serious charge against Mr. Hood. Here is a Company in which—and if hon. Gentlemen choose I will read Mr. Conacher's answers to my questions—men have been kept working 36 hours on end year after year, and the fact kept from the knowledge of the Manager and the Directors. That could only be done by a wholesale system of deception on the part of the stationmasters and the men below them. It is certain that a very loose method of making reports must have existed when such matters could go on without discovery at head-
  900
  quarters. Yet, at the end of all these years, the Directors fix the blame on this one unfortunate man who has come to give evidence, and they place at his door the blame for this system of concealment, which has been going on for at least five or six years. I say, first of all, that while the Committee were right in saying that this man was dismissed mainly for charges arising out of his evidence, those charges were trumpery, and he ought not to have been dismissed for them. There were probably other grave reasons for this course, and perhaps the gravest of all was that, in the words of the Chairman, Hood was an enemy of the Company; but, quite apart from his dismissal, Hood was censured and bullied by the Directors in a manner that, to say the least of it, was most unfortunate, and treated in a way that will in future deter any man liable to such treatment from giving evidence before a Parliamentary Committee, or giving evidence about his position at all. However, Sir, I must say, on different grounds from those given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Committee, I should consider that the dignity of this House would be vindicated by the Resolution which he has moved, and all the more because I do not believe in using our power of imprisonment vindictively. I do not think in the long run it would conduce to the dignity of the House to do so. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman should not remain, and will not remain, unanswered; but I am afraid that the unanimity and gravity of the animadversion of the House on the conduct of the Directors has been sorely spoiled by the line which, in his speech to-night, the right hon. Gentleman has taken.
  MR. MILVAIN: I think, Sir, that in the interests of Hood it would have been better if the Motion made by the Chairman of the Committee had been accepted by the House rather than that we should be obliged to go into the evidence to ascertain whether the Directors of the Company were or were not justified, from causes arising out of the evidence, in dismissing Hood. I think, Sir, on that point it is an admitted principle that if a servant conducts himself in a way which is inconsistent with the

  901
  faithful discharge of his duty, his misconduct justifies his immediate dismissal. It is sufficient, in the eye of the law, if it is conduct which is prejudicial or is likely to be prejudicial to the interests or the reputation of the master, and the master would be justified, not only if he discovered it at the time but if he did not discover it until afterwards, in dismissing that servant. The right hon. Gentleman who last spoke alluded to the hours of labour on the Cambrian Railway as disclosed by the witness Bather. It was evidence which I must admit startled every Member of the Committee, and I was one who demanded a full inquiry. We were successful in getting many witnesses, including many servants of the Cambrian Railway, and it did not take long to see that the hours they were working some time ago were excessive. But that was before this Committee of Inquiry was appointed, and every single individual servant deposed to the fact that now he was perfectly satisfied with his hours of labour. I am surprised that a right hon. Gentleman in the position of the Member for Bridgeton, whose words and expressions ought to have weight in this House and in the country, should mislead the House as he has done. Not one servant only, but every servant of the Railway Company who was called before the Committee was asked by myself and by others as to whether he was satisfied now with his hours of labour, and in every case the answer was that he was perfectly satisfied. A more healthy and satisfactory type of servants I do not think any Committee ever saw during their long inquiry. Now, Sir, let us apply the principle of justification to the Railway Company in dismissing its servant. It arose in this way. After the evidence of Mr. Bather, Mr. Conacher was called, and somewhat qualified Bather's evidence; then Mr. Hood came before the Committee and repeated what had been deposed to by Mr. Bather, that Humphreys had been working for 44 hours on a stretch at a certain station on a given day. I think that was in November, 1887, and immediately preceded an accident at the station where he was a servant. Now, Sir, in consequence of the reiteration of Mr.
  902
  Bather's evidence by Mr. Hood, it became necessary for the officials of the Company to look into the pass books and the memoranda as to what took place immediately before the accident, and the inquiry disclosed this—that instead of Humphreys having served for 44 hours, as Hood and Bather asserted, he had not served more than half that time. There was an entry in the pay sheet to the effect that on the Saturday night and the Friday night immediately preceding the accident—the nights upon which it was said Humphreys worked 44 hours—a man named Robinson served one night and Humphreys the other. The pay sheet initialled in Hood's own handwriting showed that Humphreys and Robinson had both received pay in respect of those nights. When Hood's attention was called to this he raised the excuse — now raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division — that as Humphreys was working those long hours he thought he should have the company of another servant, and therefore Robinson was allowed to be with him. That was not true. It was proved to the satisfaction of the majority of the Committee — the minority can deny it if they like—that the name Robinson was not in the handwriting of Robinson, but had been signed by a man named Stokes. It was discovered also upon testimony satisfactory to the majority of the Committee that this man had drawn his money, in respect of his services, from the stationmaster. If that is true, here you have the undoubted fact that it was not true that Humphreys was working 44 hours, but that his duties were shared by somebody else, that the stationmaster Hood permitted Stokes to sign Robinson's name, permitted some person to draw the money, and permitted Stokes also to practically draw money from another source. I ask any disinterested and impartial person to put himself in a position of trust, to put himself in the position of a Director of a Railway Company, a trustee for shareholders in the Railway Company, and ask himself if he would be acting fairly and honestly to the community by allowing a man who wilfully and deliberately falsified

  903
  his pay-sheet to remain in the service of the Company. I will go one step further. We had statements before the Committee which I submit to impartial men would, if true, be evidence of an offence within the Criminal Law.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Why did you not prosecute him?
  MR. MILVAIN: I think no one will doubt, if the Directors of the Railway Company honestly believed he had been guilty of falsifying that pay-sheet they were perfectly justified, whatever the evidence he gave before the Committee may have been, in dismissing him from the service of the Railway Company. But there was another question, and it was that this is calculated to prejudice the Railway Company in the eyes of the public apparently without any provocation. Hood the stationmaster deposed to the Committee that this accident in 1887 was caused not by the negligence of Humphreys, but in consequence of the permanent way being in a rotten condition. Well, that was rather an astounding statement to make. But the cause of that accident had been inquired into by Colonel Rich, an Inspector of the Board of Trade. Colonel Rich inspected the permanent way, and his Report was not that the permanent way was in a rotten condition, but that the accident was brought about in consequence of the negligence of Humphreys. There are some persons in the Committee who believed, and who believe still, that the permanent way was in a rotten condition. But the evidence of Hood was only corroborated by a man who admitted in his statement before Colonel Rich that he deliberately said what was untrue.
  MR. HENEAGE: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask whether the hon. Gentleman is entitled to go into all these facts? If so, we shall have a week's debate. I ask that question more especially, seeing it has been said by the Committee, in their Report to the House—
  "Your Committee have not deemed it to be part of their duty to express any opinion as to how far the conduct of the paid John Hood and the irregularities disclosed by his evidence,
  904
  as well as the character of the evidence, were calculated properly to forfeit the confidence of the Directors of the Cambrian Railway Company."
  MR. SPEAKER: That is entirely a matter for the discretion of this House. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it may be inconvenient to travel into all the details, but it is not for me to indicate the direction in which the discretion of any hon. Member may be limited in discussing the Special Report and the evidence contained in it.
  MR. MILVAIN: The right hon. Gentleman was not in his place when the right hon. Gentleman his, colleague raised the question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Sir G. Trevelyan) has placed this issue before the House, and that renders it necessary for somebody, who I hope is acquainted with the evidence laid before the Committee, to refute the misleading statements of the right hon. Gentleman. I have only one question more to deal with, and that is upon a matter which was calculated to prejudice the Railway Company in the minds of the Committee. This man went to the Committee clerk and asked for his railway money to be refunded. There could be no harm in a witness going to the Committee clerk and getting his money refunded; but the thing that was calculated to prejudice the Railway Company in the eyes of the public was this: that at the time he went to the clerk and asked for his money to be refunded, he had in his pocket a letter from the Directors of the Railway Company telling him to take a ticket, and promising to refund the money to him. I cannot help repeating what I said before, that I think it is a great pity that this issue has been raised, because I think it will be perfectly apparent to the House that it is not to the interests of Hood that the question should have been raised. And I think there were some hon. Members who took exception to the expressions made use of the other day by the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Committee (Sir Michael Hicks Beach) when he spoke of there being two parties upon the Committee, or two sides to the Committee. I think it will be perfectly apparent to this House that there are

  905
  two sides to this Committee, and that Mr. Buckley, Chairman of the Cambrian Railway Company, was justified in his opening statement when he said—
  "That he wished that certain persons might be asked to give their evidence, because it was a very serious charge to make against the Company, because we are not in the position that those are in at this moment who seem to be attacking the Company, of having well-briefed gentlemen to assist them."
  I have served upon that Committee since the Committee sat, and I have endeavoured, to the best of my ability, to form an impartial judgment on the evidence given before the Committee. It is true I am a young Parliamentary hand, but it does seem strange that hon. Members of the Committee, put there for the purpose of acting as a jury and delivering their verdict in accordance with the evidence, should be day by day consulting with the secretaries and servants of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Why consult with the Directors?
  MR. MILVAIN: I presume we may consult with other Members of the Committee on our right hand and on our left. I am unaware that I ever deserved the accusation which is hurled against me from the other side of the House by a man who has never been upon the Committee, and who does not know what has taken place before it. In my opinion, it is a scandalous state of affairs that a Member of the Committee should be sitting there and receiving instruction from day to day and act as nothing but a partisan.
  MR. J. WILSON: I quite agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down that we should approach this question and take our seats on the Committee with unbiased and uncoloured minds. But, unfortunately, there are no Trades Union secretaries on that Committee to consult. I think the hon. Member has implied in his remarks — and rather passionate they were—that he consulted with those who sat on his right and left. I think I am the nearest approach to a Trades Union secretary on that Committee, and, therefore, if anybody was consulted it would be myself. But I am not connected with the railway ser-
  906
  vants, and, therefore, I am not afraid of anyone asking questions of me. But if hon. Members have watched the course of the hon. Member's (Mr. Milvain's) address they will have come to the conclusion that his mind is very much coloured and very much biased. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member said, and I have failed to find a single remark that dealt with the Directors of the Company; but I have found that throughout the whole of his discourse he has tried to rake up every item that he could against Hood, but not one single sentence in the whole of his speech in any way refers to the Directors, or sets forth that they had done wrong. The Directors of this Company have been before the House, and they have made an apology. If the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare) had been accepted, I should not have risen in my place to say anything in the course of this Debate. If it had been considered that Mr. Hood was unfairly dealt with, and that there were other reasons besides incompetence which made the Directors discharge him; and if the Directors were willing to re-instate him or give him some compensation, I should not have said anything. But I do think it is quite necessary that the other side of this question should be heard. I have read an old parable of a man who made an apology for his sins, and asked for mercy when his creditor took him by the throat, but who, when he left the presence of that creditor, was as harsh in his conduct as ever he had been, and demanded from his debtor the uttermost farthing. I can understand the apology made by the Directors if they can get out of the difficulty in that way. But I speak as a working man, and as feeling what no other gentleman in this House can feel, because I have been in the position of Hood, and have had my daily bread taken away by the action of the men who employed me. And, speaking on behalf of a working man as a working man, I believe this man has been discharged from his duty substantially and entirely because he said before the Committee that which he believed to be true. The hon. Member for Durham said the long hours on the Cam-

  907
  brian Railway were ancient history. I have in my hand an outline of the evidence given by two of the witnesses of this railway. One of them is Albert Thomas, who has only been in the employment of the Company one year. He deposed that—
  "He had been on duty 36 to 40 hours at a stretch. During the whole of those periods of 36 to 40 hours' stretches he had no authority to leave the box, and he would have been neglecting his duty if he had done so."
  He likewise said that—
  "He had been in the same box for a stretch of 40 hours."
  I think that entirely shows that the long hours which have been worked upon this railway are not a matter of ancient history, but have been in existence within the past four or five years. There are two questions which lead me to the conclusion that Hood has been discharged mainly on account of his appearance before the Committee. These two questions are—first, the great words of praise that this man has received from Mr. Conacher and the Company generally. I hold in my hand one or two references which have been made to Mr. Hood in times gone by by Mr. Conacher. This man has been in the service of the Company above 20 years. He has served them from a boy until he has become of middle age and his strength is waning. In 1881 he applied for a situation of a higher grade, and Mr. Conacher wrote the following letter:—
  "Dear Sir,—Mr. Hood informs me that he is a candidate for the post of relieving officer in your district, and I beg to state that he has been in the service of this Company for about 20 years, for about 14 years of which he was, as you are aware, stationmaster at Ellesmere, and I am of opinion that his qualifications are such as to befit him for the position he seeks.—J. Conacher."
  There are other references one might quote made by Mr. Conacher as to the ability and qualifications of Hood. But it might be stated to the House that on the day before Hood appeared before the Committee to give his evidence he was one of ten men who received prizes from the Company for keeping his station in such a quiet and orderly manner. Surely a man who kept his station in such a manner as to call forth praise, and who won the third prize out of ten, is entitled to
  908
  better treatment than he has received. In connection with this prize, Hood says that from the year 1884 he had received prizes every year for the way and manner in which he kept his station, and he had received more prizes for that object than any other stationmaster on the line. Another question leads me to the conclusion that this man has been ill-treated, and that he was high in the estimation of the Company. Let us look at the wages he received. He received £80 a year as stationmaster, and in addition his house rent free and garden which, according to his own calculation, amounted to somewhere near £15 a year, thus making his income £95 a year. If I were speaking of other Railway Companies I should not offer to say that £80 a year was a very high sum for a stationmaster, but I would like to read to the House a quotation from the evidence of Mr. Conacher as to his value of labour and the wages that should be paid. In answer to a question put to him he says—
  "That the current wages in any district for labour are 13s. or 14s. a week, and that, therefore, that was a proper sum to pay railway servants."
  Now, if that be so, any man receiving £80 a year, with £15 as the value of a house, would naturally be held in very high esteem by the Company, and consequently if he received this sum up to the time he gave evidence, it was a proof that the Company considered him a proper servant. I am sure there is no hon. Gentleman in this House who would like to be dealt with in the way and manner in which this man was dealt with a day or two after he gave his evidence before the Committee. He was on the platform when a clerk came to him with a letter and told him that he was done at a minute's notice. The letter was as follows:—
  "Secretary and General Manager's Office,
  "Oswestry, 10th August, 1891.
  "I am instructed by the Directors to inform you that this Company have no further use for your services, and, on your handing over the keys and all property of the Company, the bearer, Mr. Robert Jones, will pay you a month's wages in lieu of the usual notice, and will take charge of your station from to-day. The house must be vacated on the 10th proximo.
  J. Conacher.
  "To Mr. Hood, Montgomery."
  Having regard to the fact that Mr. Conacher in various letters had commended Hood, and that he was paid a high salary and received prizes for keeping his station so well, we can come to no other conclusion than that this man was discharged because he gave evidence before the Committee. It has been stated that we should act with justice to the community. I look upon this man, or any other witness before a Royal Commission or Parliamentary Committee, or a Court of Justice, as a servant of the State for the time being, who has a perfect right to be guarded and cared for. If any Board of Directors, or anyone else, interfere with that man in the discharge of his duty to the State, they have a perfect right to answer to the State for that. I would like the House to realise the position of this man for a moment; to put themselves into the position of this man; to take the position of a working man whose daily bread has been swept away by the action of a Board of Directors. He says—
  "I went into the office and was paid a month's wages in advance, and handed up my keys to the relief clerk, who could give me no reason for my dismissal; and, as I knew of no reason myself, I need hardly tell you that the blow was a terrible one to me to be so harshly treated after so many years of faithful service."
  Here is a man who has given the best of his life to the Railway Company, and whatever energy and skill he possessed. He has grown old, and because he speaks the truth as a man ought to do, because he divulges that which is a question of safety or danger to the public, he is discharged from the employment in which he has served so faithfully and honourably. I am no lawyer, but I understand crimes are classed as injury to persons and injury to property. I venture to say these Directors have injured this man on both accounts; they have destroyed his character that he has built up for himself in the neighbourhood in which he lives; they have injured him in the most vital property that a working man can have. He has worked himself into that position from the lowest level of railway service to what is a very high level, yet these gentlemen, these Directors,
  910
  get this poor fellow into their Boardroom and they harass him and hound him. I have seen the picture of a stag at bay with the hounds snarling all round him, and I am using no extravagant figure when I say I consider that this man was in that position. He has had taken from him the prospect of his daily bread, the prospects of his family, the results of life-long labour. And I would ask this House to say, if it can do nothing else, that these Directors should now compensate him in the only way in which it can be done.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend who has just sat down has made a pathetic and striking appeal to the House to apply the remedy which he appears to think we have it in our power to apply to an act of injustice. And I think that the discussion which we have heard must have impressed many minds with the belief that we are involved in a question of some difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, speaking with the double authority of the Chairman of the Committee and a Member of the Cabinet, representing his colleagues on a question which touches the honour and dignity of the House, has made a proposition to the House, and my duty is to ask myself whether there is any sufficient reason for my dissenting from that proposition, or whether it is in my power to suggest, in lieu of the course he proposes to take, some course obviously more advisable. Well, certainly we have had a great diversity of opinion expressed. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has given an animated vindication of the conduct of the Directors. The prevailing tone of the speeches, and, perhaps, the prevailing sentiment of the House, are to the effect that there has been some harshness in the course which has been pursued. Such at least—it may be an incorrect inference—but, such is the inference I should draw from the speeches which have been delivered. Then we have a diversity of course presented to us by the Amendment which has been proposed by another hon. Member. I understood the hon. Member who spoke last to support that Amendment;

  911
  and, though I will not criticise minutely the language of the Amendment, it is quite obvious to me that the Amendment is to the effect that the House desires and seeks to promote the reinstatement in office of a servant of a Railway Company whom the authorised heads of that Company have rightly or wrongly considered it their duty to dismiss.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Or to compensate him.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: To reinstate or compensate. I am not sure that I am in a position to discuss that separate alternative. It would, I think, be a very novel, and, I am afraid, in some respects a questionable method of proceeding for this House to come to a decision which it has no power to enforce, that one individual should compensate some other individual to whom it thinks injustice has been done. Then, Sir, in respect to re-instatement, it is quite obvious that in any case where this House might be inclined to advise, and especially if it were inclined to force, the re-instatement in office of a person dismissed from it by competent authorities, this House would incur an indefinite, but a very serious responsibility from the consequences which might follow, or might be supposed to follow — even, perhaps, if unjustly supposed to follow—from that re-instatement. Then, Sir, I think the House must feel that, speaking broadly of proposals of this kind, we place ourselves in very considerable difficulty if we widen the issue beyond that which has been raised for us by the Committee. This Committee was presumably in possession of our confidence, and nothing has been said in this Debate which leads me to suppose that the House has seen cause to withdraw that confidence. I admit there may have been in the evidence facts or language which might have led the House on some broad grounds to believe the Committee had gone astray; but I wish to represent to the House that in the absence of such broad grounds we may perhaps be wiser to continue that confidence in the Committee which we testified by its appointment, and which they would appear to deserve by a lengthened and laborious investigation, and consequently to see what it is that
  912
  the Committee recommend us to do, and whether we can really make a practical improvement on that recommendation. Sir, there are two things about which I imagine unanimity prevails—they have not been questioned in any of the speeches delivered tonight. One of them is that it is our absolute duty, under all conditions and in all circumstances, to maintain the perfect freedom of speech for witnesses before our Committees, and the second is that it is a duty no less sacred to vindicate in a just and equitable, but in a firm and decided manner the Privileges of the House. Well, Sir, I observe that the Committee have abstained, although there was a division of opinion in the Committee on the subject, the Committee—that is to say, the majority of the Committee—have abstained from re-trying the question between the House and Mr. Hood. I am not prepared, for one, to depart from the course taken by the Committee. I do not say that arguments may not be made to an opposite effect; but, in my opinion, if we attempt to try the case between the Company and Mr. Hood on its merits we shall embark on a task of great difficulty, and one not to be satisfactorily disposed of in a debate of one, two, or three nights in this House. The Committee, as I think wisely, addressed the attention of the House to that which primarily concerns our duty in the matter—namely, the dangerous effect of the conduct of the Directors upon the freedom of speech of witnesses before our Committees, and upon their probable disposition in consequence to speak freely or otherwise when called upon to give their evidence. That being the case, the right hon. Gentleman has proposed a Motion which undoubtedly goes past the question of the relative merits of the Directors and Mr. Hood, in the case unhappily raised between them, and the right hon. Gentleman has addressed himself strictly by his Motion to maintaining the Privileges of the House, and at the same time securing freedom of speech before our Committees. The right hon. Gentleman has laid stress on the fact that apology has been made by the hon. Member of this House—whom I believe no one

  913
  would ever dream of accusing of intentional wrong to anyone—and those who have been associated with him in this matter. I have looked to that apology, and I think, on the one hand, it is typically genuine, and on the other it is sufficient. The course of this House, as long as I can recollect it, has been in individual cases of Privilege and in cases of Privilege generally — however highly the doctrine of Privilege may have been stated by high authorities on certain occasions—whenever it has come to the application of the doctrine of privilege, the instinctive effort and disposition of the House and the uniform practice of the House has been to endeavour to unite mildness with firmness. Well, Sir, wrong has been done in this case, and apology has been made for that wrong—not as regards the injury done to the individual; that is not the question put before us by the Committee, and it is not a question which could be satisfactorily disposed of by any such discussion as this—but apology has been made for the wrong done to a public principle and to the public interest, with regard to the examination of witnesses before our Committees. Upon that the right hon. Gentleman has proposed that, notwithstanding that apology, the persons who have, unhappily and unwittingly, no doubt, committed this wrong should be admonished from the Chair. Some are of opinion that the language of the right hon. Gentleman's Motion ought to be strengthened. Sir, I do not concur in that opinion. The House of Commons on all occasions generously and largely accepts every apology which it believes to be sincere, and that is not only a generous course—it is a wise and prudent course. This House has quite enough to do in the discharge of its public duties, and it is wisdom as well as liberality to avoid as far as possible all collateral controversies. The right hon. Gentleman opposite proposes that these gentlemen be admonished. There is a stronger code of proceeding which is sometimes adopted—namely, that persons who have offended the House should be reprimanded. I recollect hearing a reprimand delivered from the Chair to one of the most distinguished Members of the House—namely,
  914

  Mr. O'Connell. But there were two distinguishing circumstances to be observed in that case. First, that the offence committed by Mr. O'Connell—for I must so describe it, as it was so found by the House—the offence was a very serious one; it was a charge, I think, of perjury, or something very near it, against a sworn Committee of this House; and the second was that Mr. O'Connell had declined to apologise for what he had done. Under those circumstances a reprimand was, I think, administered to Mr. O'Connell. But, as a general rule, it will be found laid down in the work of Sir Erskine May that the House has two methods of proceeding—one of them is to admonish, and the other is to reprimand, but that the course of reprimanding is not adopted unless in cases so grave in their character that, as a general rule, the offenders are in custody in the House at the time when the House determines to take that severe course. No one will say there is here before us a set of circumstances in which we could dream of placing these gentlemen in custody. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is acting strictly in accordance with Parliamentary precedent in asking the House to cause to be admonished the gentlemen who are now before us in the actual circumstances of the case; because I think we hold—not only do I speak of precedent, but I speak also of principle—that in the more lenient view which the House adopts in these matters apology in ordinary cases purges the offence. The offence is against the House; and if we accept the apology—and I do not see how we can do otherwise than receive it in this case—the offence against the House ceases to exist so far as this matter is concerned. But there was a public evil apprehended, and, therefore, it is quite right that we should not rest satisfied with mere apology, and against that public evil the admonition which is to be delivered from the Chair, if this Motion be adopted, appears to afford full and sufficient remedy. I must say I have the conviction that those who have unhappily violated in this instance the Privileges of this House will be the very last persons likely to fall into similar error or inadvertence here-

  915
  after that the course of proceeding is sufficient, and that we should limit ourselves to that which is sufficient; and whatever we may feel, whatever we may think with regard to the hardship which one individual may have suffered, we should not undertake a process even for remedying what may appear to be such hardship unless we are convinced that it is in our power to carry that process to a successful issue. On these grounds I must confess I do not think the House could act more wisely than by adopting the recommendation now made to us by the right hon. Gentleman and by the Government—a recommendation which I must say I think is fully in the spirit of the Report of the Committee as it stands, and which is, therefore, placing the proceedings of the House in this matter upon a footing on which they will receive the approval of the country.
  MR. CREMER: I hope hon. Members opposite have not deluded themselves into the belief that they have heard the last of this question; we shall yet ask them to hear some unpleasant truths. It requires no small courage to differ from the views expressed by so great an authority as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian; but with all due respect to him I am afraid he has missed one very important point in the question—namely, that those men, who just now came to the Bar with such a lame apology to the House, have not been asked by the right hon. Gentleman opposite to tender any kind of apology, to make any atonement to Mr. Hood for the injury done to him. There are two proposals before the House—one that of the right hon. Gentleman, which brought the culprits to the Bar with that miserable apology, and the Amendment which calls on the three gentlemen to make some kind of compensation to Mr. Hood or to re-instate him. I regret that the Amendment is accompanied by any request for the re-instatement of a man who has given 24 years of honest service. It has taken 24 years to discover that this unfortunate man was not a trustworthy servant; a man whom they had the day before rewarded for his skill, good conduct, and diligence in keeping his
  916
  station in good order. They have not only been guilty of abominable cruelty to this man, but are telling something which is very nearly akin to falsehood by putting on record the contemptible plea that they have discovered at last that he is an untrustworthy servant. I trust the Amendment will be pressed to a Division, though I think it would find more support without the request for re-instatement. If he were re-instated what would prevent his dismissal in two or three weeks' time? There is another course which I think the House might have taken. It might have imposed on these men a heavy pecuniary penalty, which is the only way to make them feel the displeasure of the House at the conduct of which they have been guilty. You told me, however, Sir, that I could not move to add to the Resolution words calling on these gentlemen to pay a fine of £1,000 each, to be handed over to Mr. Hood as some compensation for the wrong done to him. I shall vote for the Amendment, my only regret being that it is not of a more severe nature, and I hope we shall support that Amendment as heartily and numerously as we can to testify the indignation of a considerable minority at the dismissal of a public servant after 24 years' honest labour because he had the courage of his convictions and told truths which were unpalatable to the Directors of the Cambrian Company.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: The hon. Member for Durham said that there were two parties in the Committee; it seems to me that there are two parties in the House—one of which looks on this as a mere breach of Parliamentary Privilege, and the other that which looks upon it as an important question of the bread having been taken out of a man's mouth and his means of subsistence taken away after many years of faithful service. Not being an old Member of the House, I approach with diffidence the question of the breach of Privilege, but I congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on the specious nature of the arguments he laid before the House. It seemed to me he was endeavouring to touch the coil which is usually set in motion to prevent further interference with those

  917
  great monopolists, the Railway Companies. He led us to understand that it was not in the power of Parliament to have Hood re-instated; that Parliament could not interfere between the rich Directors of a vast monopoly and one of their poor servants. The speech of the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division (Sir G. Trevelyan) was full of sentiment—he proposed something and concluded nothing. In what position as Members of this House are we to pose before the bar of public opinion in this matter? A mere perfunctory apology such as that given will not satisfy the great body of the working public of this country. What profit is such an apology to a man like Hood who has lost his employment? As to his re-instatement, I think that would be absolutely illusory, for it would be impossible for any man to fulfil his duties under such circumstances in a way to continue in the employment of the Company for a fortnight after he was taken back. I hope the House will rise superior to this miserable question of mere breach of the Privileges of this House, and will see, as I think they do see, that gross injustice is being done to a helpless man by a rich and powerful Corporation. (Laughter). It is a matter of no importance to me whether this is a rich company or a company of straw—whether their rolling stock is rotten or their permanent way in bad condition; what I am anxious to know is whether the House is going to rise superior to the insinuations, first started by the President of the Board of Trade, and ably supported by right hon. Gentlemen on this side, as to the impossibility of dealing with this question as proposed by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). A scandalous act of injustice has been committed, and even if the particular Committee has ceased to sit, other Committees will have to inquire into analogous questions, and there is a feeling abroad testified to by the refusal of the Miners' Federation to give evidence before the Royal Commission on Labour, and if we refuse to do justice to this man we shall upset the feeling of confidence which ought to exist in the mind of the working classes in the honour,
  918
  fair dealing, and secrecy of the proceedings before Committees of this House, and the result will be that all future Committees to inquire into the question of hours of labour and analogous questions will be futile and illusory, and we shall not be able to get evidence to enable us to judge the opinion of the working classes, owing to the fear, carefully instilled into the House, of the danger of further interfering with private concerns by the action of the House. An hon. Member near me says that if only five or six Members go into the Lobby we ought to have the courage of our opinions, so that people outside may know that we are not hand and glove with the great Railway Companies and other swindling concerns—(Cries of "Order!")—well, and other enterprises, in their attempts to oppress their employees. I hope the presence of the working class Representatives will be a standing menace to Railway Directors and others, and I trust the House will not attach too much importance to the mere question of Privilege, which, after all, is a small matter. I hope the House will support the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division; for if we do nothing but vindicate our own dignity the opinion in which we are held by people outside is likely to suffer.
  MR. CHANNING: The President of the Board of Trade, in making his statement, remarked that in the Report of the Committee there were two passages which presented more than a merely verbal difference; but he omitted to say that it was only by his own casting vote that the Committee decided to insert the words "dismissed in consequence of charges arising out of his evidence," instead of the words which I suggested—namely, that Mr. Hood was dismissed "in consequence of the evidence given before your Committee." It was only because of the accidental absence of one or two Members of the Committee and because of the casting vote of the right hon. Gentleman that the milder form of words found a place in the Report. I venture to say that it would have been fairer to the House if the right

  919
  hon. Gentleman had intimated that this was not a unanimous Report, and that we were practically evenly divided on this most essential issue. The hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Milvain) has thrown down a challenge to me, and has asserted that there were on this Committee well-briefed gentlemen who argued the case for the employees. I am not ashamed of the part I have borne in the examination and cross-examination of witnesses before the Committee. I am not ashamed of having taken up the case of the railway servants, and of having done my best to prove from the witnesses the contentions for which I and other gentlemen on the Committee have been struggling. And I think such a challenge comes with a very bad grace from the one gentleman on the other side who in his examination and cross-examination of witnesses has employed a procedure only known in the Criminal Courts of this country. The hon. and learned Member for Durham has tried to introduce invidious matter against Mr. Hood by referring to this question of the pay-sheet, but he has forgotten to tell the House what I elicited from the Chairman of the Company on this subject. After pressing Mr. Buckley for 20 minutes or half-an-hour I secured from him an admission that Mr. Hood, when he was dismissed from the Company's service, received back his guarantee money, which was an acknowledgment that his accounts with the Company were clear and honest. I think it is only right, after the invidious and persecuting spirit in which the hon. Member has placed this part of the subject before the House, that I should state this fact. In my opinion, this man was dismissed solely and entirely because of the spirit in which the Chairman acted from the first. In replying to me he said on three or four different occasions that he thought it was disloyalty to the Company on the part of this official that he should take any part as the friend or spokesman of the workmen under his control, and that it was not the duty of this man to take part in any agitation which had for its object the improvement of the condition of those who were working
  920
  under him, and that it was his duty to take the part of his employers, the Company. The only reason that he was dismissed was because he took the part of those humbler men, and because he took part in an agitation to relieve those poor men from the cruelty of long and protracted hours. The hon. and learned Member for Durham has actually stated that the men were now quite content with their hours, but his argument is entirely worthless, because he knows very well, and so does every Member of the Committee, that this scandal of long hours was only swept away in October or November of the year before last, after the agitation had begun. Mr. Conacher came before us and stated that he had not known of these enormous hours worked by the servants of the Railway Company, and that he was only informed of it at the last moment. That statement seems incredible on the face of it. I am not here, however, to charge Mr. Conacher with falsehood—though I must express my opinion that much of his evidence bears that character—but it was only after the agitation had brought to the knowledge of the world the disgraceful hours worked upon this railway that those hours were shortened. There were only two occasions on which this man was complained about or punished, and in both cases when he had been taking the part of the men. The first occasion was when he thought that one of the porters under him had been unjustly dismissed from his employment, and he, in company with a number of people in the town, signed a memorial for the man's re-instatement. On that occasion Mr. Hood was suspended, and eventually was removed to a smaller station. The second occasion is the present, when he has been dismissed from his employment and deprived of his livelihood. I consider the treatment of this man is a disgrace and a scandal. I say that this man has been hunted down by the Chairman and the Manager of this line, and driven out of his position because he dared to speak on behalf of the workmen under him, and I say that is an offence which calls for far more stringent measures than are proposed by the President of the

  921
  Board of Trade. I should not have shrunk from moving a Resolution which would have committed Mr. Buckley and Mr. Conacher—for I consider the offence of the Member for the Stretford Division and of the other gentleman is a smaller one—to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms. I trust, however, that the decision of the House may prove a salutary warning not only to these gentlemen but to other employers of labour.
  MR. FENWICK: I suppose everyone will agree that the Motion of the President of the Board of Trade would carry greater weight provided it was accepted by the unanimous vote of the House. But it is evident that in its present form it will not be unanimously supported by the House. I have risen, therefore, for the purpose of making a suggestion to the First Lord of the Treasury, which I think will enable us to accept unanimously the Resolution proposed by the President of the Board of Trade. I would suggest that this Debate should be adjourned, in order to give the Directors of the Cambrian Railway an opportunity of considering the question of compensating Mr. Hood. Unless some such course is adopted, it is idle to think that, by a Motion like this, you will create confidence in the minds of the working people who are compelled to give evidence before Select Committees. The idea that gentlemen of wealth may condone an offence against the Privileges of this House by a mere apology, however sincere, will do no good. There is great force in the words: "He takes my life who takes from me the means by which I live," and this is practically what has been done in the case of John Hood. And unless some compensation is given to Hood for the injustice and hardship that has been done to him, it is idle to think that such a Resolution as that proposed by the President of the Board of Trade will establish confidence in the minds of workmen when they are in future requested to give evidence before Committees of this House. I therefore make the suggestion that I have put forward in order that the Directors of the Cambrian Company may have an opportunity of considering the point.
  922
  I understand the matter has already been brought under the notice of the Directors, and, in order that we may not foreclose these negotiations, I move the Adjournment of the Debate with the object I have stated. I quite agree that we cannot insist on the question of re-instatement. The man's life, if he were re-instated, would be a misery to him, and it would be better for him, and better for the Directors, that they should part company, and part company for ever. The only way in which that can be done satisfactorily is by some form of compensation being offered to him for the loss of his employment, and his consequent suffering, both in body and mind, through the action of the Directors. I move the Adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I beg to second the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Fenwick.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment will not press it to a Division. I think he will feel that if we were to adjourn the Debate for the reason he has given we should be practically expressing an opinion as to the merits of the controversy between the Directors of the Cambrian Railway Company and Mr. Hood. We should, in other words, be dealing with that part of the subject which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian very properly reminded us we shall probably have to deal with. The whole speech of the hon. Gentleman is based upon the opinion, which I have not the least doubt he most sincerely entertains, that Mr. Hood has been a wronged man in all respects, that he was a man in whom the Directors had every reason to have confidence, and that their dismissal of him was a harsh exercise of arbitrary power. Whether he be right or wrong, he must know very well that a large number of persons who have the very best means of forming a judgment are of a directly opposite opinion. I do not, of course, say whether that opinion is right or wrong; but in a case in which those who have heard the evidence have

  923
  come to an exactly opposite opinion from that entertained by the hon. Member, it is surely rash that this House, not having heard the evidence, should express an opinion on the point. The hon. Gentleman, I gather, holds the view that the Directors of the Cambrian Company are wealthy people having at their backs large funds, and have, therefore, been dealt with by this House in a more lenient fashion than would Hood or his friends had they committed a breach of our Privileges. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will see that that view is not sustainable, and if I am to express an opinion on that point, I think it does not induce the House to lean in the direction of any gentleman who breaks its Privileges that they happen to belong to the relatively small class of employers rather than to the large class of employed. I believe all parties in the House desire to act with absolute impartiality, and will not allow their minds to be influenced by the fact that this breach of Privilege has been committed in connection with a very burning controversy between employers and employed; and if they will put themselves in that impartial condition of mind, they will feel with hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite that probably the course we are pursuing is most conducive to the dignity of the House. In any case, I think it would be quite impossible for us to assent to the Motion which would hold suspended over the heads of those who have been heard at the Bar our final decision as to the course to be adopted. For that reason, and also because I think it is dangerous for us to embark on a discussion and commit ourselves to a decision on the merits of the case between the one side or the other, I again beg to press upon the hon. Member to consider the advisability of withdrawing his Motion, and allowing us to proceed to a decision.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The difficulty I feel about the remarks of my hon. Friend is not exactly of the character which has just been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. I have no difficulty in forming my own opinion of the nature of this transaction. I have read this evidence, and
  924
  I have not the smallest doubt whatever that those Directors dismissed this man on account of the evidence he gave before the Committee. The mere fact that Mr. Conacher, before he gave any evidence at all, applied to the London and North-Western Railway Company to get up a case against him was enough for me. Consequently, I am prepared to condemn these Directors for the course they have taken both with reference to this man and with reference to the House of Commons. But I would ask my hon. Friend to remember that to-night and in this place, important as it is to vindicate justice towards any individual, it is far more important that we should maintain the character, the dignity, and the authority of the House of Commons. If we are going to adjourn this Debate, what are we going to adjourn it for? To enter into negotiations with the Cambrian Directors? That seems to me to be the reason suggested, that we should find out what the Directors would do. That does not seem to me to be a course that would become us on this occasion. Some Gentlemen in the course of this Debate have talked about fines. There was a time, more than 200 years ago, when the House of Commons endeavoured to pursue that course. It has never endeavoured to pursue it since, and it would be a very unwise power for the House of Commons to exercise. The House of Commons never appears to advantage when it exceeds its jurisdiction, especially in cases of Privilege. I can remember in my youth the mess the House of Commons got into in the case of Stockdale and Hansard, when we measured swords with our printers and with the Courts of Law. Strongly as I have expressed my opinion of the behaviour of the Directors in the matter, the objection I feel to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division is, "How are you to carry it into effect?" The Amendment says that the Directors will not have purged their contempt until they have re-instated Hood, or otherwise compensated him. You cannot compel them to re-instate him. You have no legal authority or power to do it. You cannot compel them to compensate him. You have no jurisdiction

  925
  nor any machinery by which you can carry that out. You cannot with advantage to the House take a course of this character. I think the knowledge of what has been their action in this case and the force of public opinion will not be lost upon the Directors of the Cambrian Railway, and I hope and believe—nay, I am convinced—that these forces will do justice to this man Hood for the treatment he has received. But it is not on account of the natural and just feeling of indignation which this treatment has inspired that we ought to allow ourselves to commit the House of Commons to a course of conduct which may not redound to its advantage or its dignity. And glad as I should be myself, holding the opinion that I entertain as to the treatment this man has received from the hands of these Directors, to take any course which should give him the redress which he is entitled to, I cannot follow on any lines which I think would place the House of Commons in a false position. I have been looking myself into the precedents in this case; and there is a case which resembles it, I think, very much in character. It took place in 1842. There was a man of the name of Ash-worth, and he was charged before this House with an attempt to influence a witness under examination. It is not exactly the same thing, but it is of a cognate character. He was summoned to the Bar of this House, and he apologised for his conduct; and the Motion then made was—
  "That Ashworth, having expressed his contrition for his offence, he be called to the Bar and admonished by Mr. Speaker, and discharged from further attendance on this House."
  That was the course taken in that case, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will excuse me for saying that he would have very much strengthened his Resolution if he had not introduced into his speech language which looked to me a great deal too much like apologising for the conduct of the Directors. I think that has tended very much to weaken his Resolution, and to put a greater difficulty in the way of the House adopting it. I hope he will excuse me for saying, with great respect, that I think he was in error in
  926
  the conduct of his case. But we have got to look at the substance of the thing. What else can the House of Commons do except what has been proposed? That is the practical question which we have got to put to ourselves. You cannot compel the re-in-statement of this man; you cannot compel compensation. It is true you can send these men to prison. (Cheers.) All I can say is, I cannot advise the House of Commons to take that course. You may in the heat of discussion and in a moment of indignation take a course of that kind; but the House of Commons never took a course of that kind that it has not upon reflection had occasion to regret it. I do not think it would be a wise course, and I do not think it would ultimately be a dignified course. You have called these men before you; you have compelled them to admit their error. (Cries of "No!") Well, I must say that I think the admission might have been made in a franker manner. But I am now considering what course I think it would be wise for us to take to-night. They have, at all events, expressed their regret for the violation of the Privileges of the House, and upon that it seems to me that an admonition and a rebuke to them for the conduct they have pursued is a course which the former practice of this House indicates as that which is becoming to its dignity. Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who believe that the effect of the language which you, Sir, will address to them will in itself bring about that regret for the wrong that has been done which I believe every man in this House desires to see manifested.
  MR. HOWELL: I think the House will see at once that the case cited by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) is not on all-fours with the case now before the House. In the particular case cited by the right hon. Gentleman there was a temporary injury done; and there it ended. What is happening in this case is that an injury is proceeding; and they have not attempted to purge themselves from that injury which is now proceeding. The apology tendered

  927
  to this House is an absolutely empty apology, for the Directors are now doing and continuing the wrong of which we complain. I speak on this subject, not as many hon. Members on that side of the House, who seem to regard it as a trifling thing and to jeer at it; I speak as one who has suffered from this kind of thing myself. It has been my lot to have been starved out of London, and to have had my home sold over my head twice. That has been done by employers of labour, and therefore I can well understand how it is that a great deal of feeling has been evoked in the case of the man Hood. But I say that the apology that has been tendered is adding insult to injury. What has been done here to-night? An attempt has been made to injure this man in his name and character, beyond the injury which has been already inflicted upon him by discharging him from his position, so that he would not be able to get any other employment in any Railway Company of the United Kingdom. I say, Sir, it is an insult to this House to ask this House to pass unanimously the empty apology that has been tendered, whilst no reparation whatever is made to the man who has been injured, and will be injured as long as he lives, and his wife and family with him. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be shocked that some hon. Members on this side of the House suggested the alternative of the prison. Why, it is a fitting alternative for men who have endeavoured to starve a man and his wife and family for giving evidence, as he was entitled to have done, before a Committee of this House. And yet you tell us that you are vindicating the honour and privileges of this House, whilst you give ample opportunity for such-like Corporations and such-like Companies to inflict a like injury again the next time they happen to come upon another man employed by a railway, or employed in a mine, or employed in a workshop in the United Kingdom, who might give evidence. I am not able to speak with regard to the particular form in which sufficient compensation should be made; but it seems to me that my hon. Friend below me (Mr. Fenwick) has made a suggestion that might
  928
  be accepted by the House—to leave it to the Cambrian Railway Company and the hon. Gentleman who is a Member of this House, and the other Directors of the Company, to make some compensation to this man for the injury that has been done. But unless they are prepared to make this reparation for the injury they have done, well, then, I say that I, for one, should go with a light heart into the Lobby to vote for the imprisonment of men—(laughter)—yes; hon. Gentlemen may laugh—of men who will set at naught the Privileges of this House, and who will set at naught the poverty and suffering of the witnesses who give evidence before a Committee of this House.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question is that the Debate be now adjourned.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I am afraid the labours of our Committee have not been very useful. We sat for five or six days. We had all these gentlemen before us. We had Hood before us and many others for many hours of the same day. We found—(Cries of "Question, question!")
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that the Question before the House is the Question of the Adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: Having submitted our Report to the House, it does seem strange—(Cries of "Order Order!")
  MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to take notice of what I have said, that the Debate is on the Adjournment, and he has had recourse to his former argument.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I was about to say that, having finished our labours and having submitted our Report to the House, it does seem strange that this House should be required again to debate a matter which was so fully raised before us, and which has been so fully investigated by the Committee specially appointed for the purpose.
  Dr. TANNER, Mr. MORTON,and other hon. Members rose to speak, but none of them was invited to continue the discussion.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 136; Noes 221.—(Div. List, No. 71.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. MCLAREN: I am disposed to regret that this case of John Hood was not dealt with at an earlier period, because I think it is a question which should have been kept within limits that would have enabled the House to have come to a very speedy decision with regard to it. I do not intend to follow the example of some of my colleagues on the Committee in going into the evidence which was laid before them, except on one very important point. I think it would have been infinitely better if the question before the House had been confined to the point to which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade endeavoured to confine it. Granting that a breach of Privilege has been committed, it would be necessary to decide what punishment should be meted out to the four gentlemen who were called before the House to account for their conduct, and I entirely concur in the view that this House is not fully competent to decide upon the general merits of the very complicated questions as between Mr. Hood and the Directors of the Cambrian Railway. Therefore, it is somewhat idle to occupy a great amount of time in going into the other parts of the question. The question is a serious one, both as regards Hood and as regards working men generally who may come and give evidence before any Committee of this House. In Oswestry, to which I recently paid a visit, Hood is well known, and though everybody there does not sympathise with him it is felt in the strongest degree that he was dismissed for giving evidence. It has spread something like terrorism among the employees all along the Cambrian line. If Hood had not given evidence he would not have been dismissed, and it is, therefore, idle for the Directors to say that he was dismissed because of his irregularities. The irregularities were three or four years old; they were of a trivial nature; and, considering that they would not have been discovered if Hood had not given
  930
  evidence, his dismissal is one of the meanest of things. The serious part of the matter is the effect it may have on employers and workmen throughout the country; and certainly if employers find that Parliament treats a matter of this kind lightly, many of them will be encouraged to attempt to control the expressions of opinion of their workmen. There is far too great a tendency among employers to assume the control of a workman's actions and opinions after his day's work is done. I have seen plenty of it in my own constituency, where men have suffered, and even been dismissed, because of their political opinions, and the House will remember the Crewe intimidation cases that were so much talked of two or three years ago. We have now the opportunity to strike a blow against this intimidation, to show to employers everywhere what this House thinks of their interference with the free speech of their workmen. For this supreme reason, therefore, it is desirable that Parliament should take the strictest and most severe view of a transaction of this kind, so that freedom of speech may be preserved. Now, Sir, did the Cambrian Railway Directors commit the offence which is charged against them, and was the effect such as to deter other witnesses from giving evidence? It was said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that, as the Committee had resolved to take no more evidence, it was, therefore, untrue to say that witnesses had been deterred from coming forward. Technically, the right hon. Gentleman may be correct, but in substance he is certainly not so; and we were assured by Mr. Harford, whose evidence was not rebutted, that witnesses would be deterred. I am a Member of this Committee, and I am a Member of the Committee that is inquiring into the question of shop hours. Both Committees are pursuing precisely the same line in calling both employer and employed; and as the character of the two Committees is the same, it is obvious that if the shopkeepers find that this House is going to treat lightly the case of those who injure any person for giving evidence they in their turn might be emboldened to act in the same way. Many gentlemen would

  931
  not object to the excitement and notoriety arising from their appearance at the Bar of the House, and possibly the three gentlemen who have appeared at the Bar of the House to-day will be the heroes of their respective domestic circles; they will not regard it as an injury, but rather as a joke. We do not desire that the matter should be so treated; we regard it as a very grave and serious thing; and we should let it be known that severe punishment will follow any intimidation of our witnesses. The Directors have dismissed Hood because of the evidence he gave, and done it in such a clumsy way that we could bring them to account for it; but if they had done it more astutely, and if this Committee had not happened to be sitting, we should have heard nothing of this matter. We want to take some precautions which, if I may say so, will strike terror into the minds of those who might wish to act similarly. I am sure the Resolution of the President of the Board of Trade will not have that effect. There can be no doubt that, in addition to the dismissal of Hood, he was directly censured. I will only read two or three sentences from the report of the meeting at Crewe which was called to nominally re-consider the case—
  "On Mr. Hood being called in, the Chairman, addressing him, said:—The Directors believed, when they came to their recent decision relating to yourself, that they had before them all the facts of the case to enable them to come to a judgment. Of course they had all the correspondence, but in consequence of the letters you have written to me the Board have thought it desirable to give you an opportunity of making any statement you may wish to do. You must understand that your dismissal was not because you gave evidence before the Select Committee; you were summoned to give evidence; but you must address yourself to the question of the justification of the statements you made there. We do not object to your giving evidence, but you must justify what you said."
  Therefore, while the Directors did not take objection to evidence being given, they did object to the nature of the evidence that was given. That is perfectly clear from the remarks of the hon. Member for Stretford, who did not only question Hood, but bullied him. The hon. Member said at the meeting referred to, following a statement by
  932
  the Chairman to Hood that he had screened Humphreys—
  "No; it is to screen Mr. Hood himself from a gross neglect of duty, and he had better say frankly that the replies to the Select Committee, giving the thing in the way in which he did, were false."
  I say it is a monstrous thing for any Director of a Company, having dismissed a workman, and having met to consider whether he should be reinstated, to break out and bully him, and to tell him he had better confess at once that the evidence he gave was false. There is no evidence that Hood said anything but what he believed to be true. Although that meeting at Crewe was ostensibly called for the purpose of considering the re-instatement of Hood, there never was the slightest intention to re-instate him. They simply desired to find out something further incriminating him. Now, Sir, I think the action of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division, in moving the Amendment now before the House, was premature and unfortunate. I rose at the same time as the hon. Member, and my object was to move the substitution of the word "censure" or "reprimand" for the word "admonish." As the Resolution stands it is not, in my opinion, sufficiently strong. There are three degrees of punishment which are open to the House. The weakest of all is to admonish, the next is to reprimand, the third is imprisonment. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has chosen the weakest of the three. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian said that reprimand was only resorted to when an apology was refused; but I consider that the apology which was made to the House to-night was of so trumpery a character as to be practically worthless. I am therefore quite prepared, though we cannot now insert the word "reprimand," to vote for a more severe punishment than is proposed. I do not think these gentlemen would be too severely dealt with if they were committed by the House to custody for a week or a fortnight, because they were dealing with persons in a subordinate position to them; and it is the duty of the House to protect freedom of speech, and the free expression of opinion, especially

  933
  before Parliamentary Committees. With regard to the part of the Amendment which has been so unfortunately moved, I feel that it is impossible, for various reasons, that Hood can be re-instated; and if he were re-instated he might be dismissed in a fortnight on some other charge. But I am strongly of opinion that we ought to make an effort to obtain some pecuniary compensation for him. Although there is no precedent for such a course, there is no reason why we should not create one. I am inclined to think this is the first case of an employer dismissing a workman for giving evidence before a Committee of this House; and if it is at all possible for us to do so, the House is bound, in justice to Hood, to take the course which I suggest. I believe it is possible, and that we should decline to consider the offence purged till compensation is given. We can imprison the Directors till the end of the Session unless meantime they compensate Hood; and that is the course which in the interest of right of free speech and free evidence we ought to take. I presume the Amendment will be put as a whole; and while I will vote for it if it is pressed to a Division, I wish at the same time to make it clearly understood that I am in favour of trying to obtain pecuniary compensation for Hood, and that I disapprove of that part of the Amendment which relates to Hood's re-instatement.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I feel it my duty to join in the strong expression of opinion made by many hon. Members as to the inadequacy of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to meet the case before the House. I do so upon the broad general ground that it is essentially necessary not only to effectively protect a working man in speaking out boldly and truly, especially in connection with Select Committees of this House, but also to produce a wholesome effect generally between employers and employed, and to show that we will do our utmost to protect working men against the tyranny sometimes exercised against them by their employers. Now, Sir, the chief reason why I take such a strong view about the matter is that I know from experience that it is always possible for
  934
  an employer, by the most insidious and roundabout methods, to punish an employee who, by giving evidence or otherwise, has brought himself into disfavour. A case of this kind directly affects us because affecting the Privileges of this honourable House. There are other cases, which touch us quite as much, where intimidation and the most insidious and roundabout influence is indirectly used by employers to influence and intimidate workmen as to their votes at Parliamentary elections. I have unfortunately myself had experience of such cases, and these make me think it is all the more incumbent upon us to declare in the strongest manner possible our strong reprobation of those who make such attempts against the liberty of the subject. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade made a lame and halting apology in defence of the conduct of the Directors. He laid great stress not on the strong points in the Special Report—that the Directors had summoned this man and censured him for what he said before the Committee—but he laid the greatest stress on the point that Hood was not dismissed for what he said before the Committee, but for other charges arising out of that evidence. It afterwards transpired from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton that these charges arose from the action of the manager Conacher, who, the day before Hood was coming up to give evidence before the Committee, wrote to the authorities of another railway asking them to rake up some offences that were several years old and that that Company had charged against Hood. That shows the insidious and indirect methods adopted by some to shield themselves and to do injury to others. I consider that those expressions of these gentlemen, so far from being an ample and full apology were an emphasising of their original offence, were an additional insult to this House, if it be an insult at all to commit a breach of the Privileges of this House, that they should stand up one after another and declare that what they had done they had done with the best motives in the execution of their duty, thereby implying that they

  935
  would do it again if occasion arose. And they had no word of regret to express for the injustice they had committed and the grossly unfair way in which they had got rid of their employee for doing his simple duty. The case is even worse than that, because the hon. Member for Stretford Division said no word implying that they regretted what had been done by them to their servant. And when it came to their champion in the course of the Debate, the hon. Member for Durham City, to speak in their defence, he proceeded to do so in the most unfair and most partial and biased speech. In that speech he went far beyond what was in any sense required; he proceeded, in a long tirade against Hood, to blacken his character. The Directors having deprived the man of his position, their champion gets up in the House and, so far from expressing the least regret, proceeds in a long tirade against the man, in order to prove that he was a thief and a scoundrel, or something worse. I think that is a very great shame. Unfortunately it is not open to us to move any further Amendment; but if opportunity had offered I would have been glad to move that this man Hood, the ex-stationmaster, who has been vilified by a Member of this House, should be summoned to give his own account of the matter at the Bar of the House. We have heard his accusers, and he has been outside perhaps wronged for life without the possibility of saying anything except at second-hand by hon. Members who may be willing to espouse his cause in this House. The hon. Member and his colleagues stand up with brazen effrontery; they have no word of regret or repentance to express, and then through their friends in this House they proceed to vilify the victim of their tyrannical conduct. What we have to do is, if possible, to protect labouring men who may be summoned before Royal Commissions or Select Committees of the House from fear of the consequences of their bold and truthful demeanour before these Commissions or Committees. I was astonished at the puerile argument to which the right hon. Gentleman lent himself when he asked us to accept, as a sound argument, that no
  936
  harm would be done because this Committee had decided that no further witnesses were necessary, and, therefore, no further witness could be deterred from giving evidence in the future. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are many other Commissions and Committees, such as the Commission on Labour and the Committee on Mining Royalties, and he knows perfectly well that the effect of action such as the Directors of this Company pursued if not summarily dealt with by some action of this House will reach far into the future. And it is for the purpose of protecting those who may be concerned in giving truthful evidence on behalf of the oppressed and down-trodden of this country, and on behalf of those men who are concerned in any particular inquiry, that we demand that the strongest steps should be taken compatible with the dignity of this House, and compatible with the exercise of the undoubted authority which this House possesses. I believe it is possible for this House to proceed not only by way of admonition, but also by way of reprimand, and if the House thought that was not a severe enough course it would be possible to proceed by way of fine or actual imprisonment. That course of action has not been adopted for some considerable period, but I feel certain if it could be adopted it would be the most salutary course which could be taken by us on this occasion. As to the hon. Member for Stretford and his colleagues, I do not do them injustice when I say they will not feel the admonition which may be passed upon them. But I hope they will feel that it reflects no credit upon them. But what we want to see is what the effect will be upon the labouring classes who are most directly interested in this matter, and whose interests we have to protect for the future. And I am quite sure this will be the general feeling amongst men who may be required on future occasions to give evidence, that if nothing more is done by this House to mark the condemnation of the Members of this House of the action of those Directors, the men outside will say, "What does the House of Commons care for the suffering

  937
  caused by the oppression and tyranny exercised by our employers over us; we are marked men whenever we give evidence in our own interest which is against the interest of the employers, and we will not risk the lives and happiness of ourselves and families by subjecting ourselves to any danger or risks in giving evidence in the future." If instead of merely admonishing these gentlemen we were to take a further step and censure them, or inflict a pecuniary fine, that would restore confidence in those whose confidence in our proceedings has been so rudely shaken. That is the course I should like to see adopted. I think it would be a better course than the very feeble attempt that the right hon. Gentleman is making to sustain the Privileges of this House by the Motion he has made. And I think it would be a better and more salutary course to censure those gentlemen even than to hand them over to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, to be imprisoned in the Clock Tower, or Newgate, or Holloway. If you did that they would become the same as prisoners under the Coercion Act in Ireland, and I would not be surprised if after a short incarceration in the Clock Tower they were received with open arms and processions, and banquets were organised in their behalf. I am not in favour of the extreme penalty of sending these gentlemen to prison, but I do think the infliction of a pecuniary fine would have all the beneficial effect which we can obtain. In default of that action we can only vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, which is to the effect that the Directors should show their contrition for the offence of which they have been guilty by compensating the victim of their somewhat high-handed and arbitrary proceedings. The point has been taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian that we cannot enforce a decision of that kind. I am very sorry if it be the case that we cannot enforce a decision of that kind should it be arrived at by the House; and I am quite certain that that would be, next after the infliction of a fine, the best course we could adopt, because, if we compelled those Directors to
  938
  show their regret for what they have done by giving some compensation for the wrong they have subjected this man to, and for the way in which he has been attacked and vilified in this House, that would mark our sense of the enormity of the offence. I should like them to be summoned to the Bar for a moment, and told that either they must compensate this man whom they so grossly wronged, or receive from the House a very much stronger condemnation of their conduct. Such compensation might be very fairly combined with the suggestion of a fine, because, if they were summoned to the Bar and informed that they would be fined in the absence of giving some compensation to this man, they would be willing, rather than pay a heavy fine, to give some compensation commensurate to the injury which has been inflicted. I am quite sure a gross wrong will be done to the poorer classes of our fellow-citizens unless we show our determination to protect against such insidious acts of tyranny those who are dependent on others who have in their hands the power to wrong them.
  MR. JAMESELLIS: It is quite certain to my mind that if there had not been a Committee to inquire into the hours of labour of railway servants this man would have remained a respected stationmaster in the service of the Company. He has been deprived by the act of this Board of Directors of something like £90, and what we ought to do is to leave it to the authorities to settle what this man ought to receive for the loss of £90 a year after 20 years' service. And if we cannot exact the money from the Directors of the Cambrian Railway Company, let us pay it—let the Treasury vote a sum of money to this man. It is our duty to put this man in the same position that he was in before. If this man had been a man in high position there would be no question at all on the part of the Government or of this House about making compensation for any loss which he has sustained in consequence of the evidence he has given. But, as he is a poor man, a weak and defenceless man, we ought to stand up for him far more than for a man of position.
  MR. SOMERVELL (): So far as the Motion which has been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade goes, it appears to me that it is really as far as the House can be expected to go. But I do not base my support of that Resolution on the remarks with which the right hon. Gentleman accompanied it. Those remarks appeared to me to be to a certain extent biased, and, so far as I am personally concerned, my bias goes exactly in the opposite direction. But when a question which concerns the Privilege or honour of the House is at stake, one is bound to look to a great extent to the advice tendered by the oldest and most experienced gentleman who sits on the Front Opposition Bench. And it is because of the speech in which the right hon. Gentleman as Leader of the Opposition supported that Motion that I intend to vote for it. That speech was delivered with admirable tact. There was not the slightest bias in favour of one party or another; but it was delivered with the object of showing what the power of the House was, and how far it was possible for the House to go. I have every sympathy with the Amendment which has been moved, and I must say I do think that the man Hood has been very badly treated indeed. But it has been forcibly pointed out by two right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench that any Amendment the House might adopt would be futile because it has not the means of carrying it out, and I feel I cannot see my way to support any Motion the House could not enforce. I may also be allowed to allude to the silence of the President of the Board of Trade. We have heard a speech from an hon. and learned Member—injudicious and ill-considered and teeming with inaccuracies, and one of those inaccuracies was that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had on Tuesday stated that there were two sides on the Committee. I heard that speech, and I read it in the Times. What I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say was that there were two sides—the Directors of the Railway Companies and the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants—who wished to place their views before the Committee.
  940
  When a question of this kind is discussed the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade might have got up to correct the inaccuracy which the hon. and learned Member below the Gangway (Mr. Milvain) put into his mouth. This question is also one accompanied by some difficulty, because all the gentlemen who are summoned to the Bar are placed in the same position. I feel great hesitation as between the action of Mr. Conacher and the action of the Directors. In considering how this question ever got before the House at all we have to consider how it is that Hood got into the witness-box. It was owing to Mr. Conacher having stated in the witness-box that Hood was suspended and fined a fortnight's pay in consequence of the accident at Ellesmere, where he was stationmaster. In a subsequent portion of his evidence Conacher contradicted that statement. Hood saw this statement in the local papers, a statement gravely affecting his position, but the correction was not reported; he wrote a perfectly proper letter to the Manager, in which he gave the names of the papers and the dates of the issues, stated what was contained in them, and asked for leave to correct the misstatement before the Committee and in the papers. Conacher took no notice of his applications to give evidence, and refused him permission to correct the statement, whereas if he had said, "This report in the local papers contains statements which are incorrect, I have corrected those statements in the Committee, and I will be very happy if the correction is given to the local papers"—if that had been done you would never have heard anything about the case at all. But the next issue of another local paper came out; again there was the misstatement and no correction. Hood wrote to the Manager and received no reply at all. Hood then came up to the Committee and gave his evidence, and on the day following the Manager, who refused permission to write to the paper to correct the former inaccuracy, wrote to that very paper and said—
  "With reference to the statement made yesterday by John Hood before the Select Committee on Railway Servants (Hours of Labour), I shall feel obliged if you will allow me to say I adhere to every word I said with reference to him."

  941
  It thus appears that not only was Hood not allowed to write to the paper and correct a statement which the Manager knew to be perfectly untrue; but the Manager wrote to the paper and confirmed that untrue statement. That appears to me to show bias on the part of the Manager. There is also the fact that he wrote on the very day Hood went to London to give evidence to the London and North-Western Railway to get proof of a miserable charge about the carriage of a hamper Hood sent to his son. These actions are clear and conclusive proof that the statement that Hood made that he was a marked man was perfectly true. I could give you instance after instance to show that Mr. Conacher deliberately endeavoured to give the Committee a false impression as to what occurred. I will only give one instance. Mr. Hood stated that he had certain duty forced upon him and his clerks. Mr. Conacher before the Committee said:—
  "It is not true that the duty was forced upon Hood and his clerks; he offered to do it voluntarily,"
  and in support of the statement he produced a telegram from Hood offering to do the duty. I asked Mr. Conacher if that was the first communication that took place between him and Hood on the subject, and he answered "Yes." But he had in his possession at the time, and he produced, a letter which showed that he had first ordered one of Hood's clerks to go and do the duty at this station, and when that man proved to be incompetent he ordered another clerk to go, and it was only then that Hood offered to assist. So far from the duty having been voluntarily undertaken by Hood and his clerks, they were on two separate occasions ordered to do this duty. That was not acting fairly and honestly by the Committee. It was endeavouring to give a false impression of the statement made. It was endeavouring to convey the impression to the Committee that neither Hood nor his clerks had been ordered to do this duty, but that the whole thing emanated from Mr. Hood as a voluntary act. We see from the evidence of the Chairman that the
  942
  whole of this matter was brought before the Board on the initiation of Mr. Conacher, and that they came to a decision in ten or fifteen minutes upon a statement by Mr. Conacher. I maintain that the man who has really occasioned this breach of Privilege is Mr. Conacher, and Mr. Conacher alone, and it is only right that he should be dealt with in a more severe manner than the others. As a Member of the Committee, and having examined most of the witnesses at some length, I have thought it right to point out to the House one or two facts which I think exonerate the Directors and the hon. Member for Stretford from anything more than carelessness in taking the representations of their Manager, and not looking into the matter themselves. I have endeavoured to show to the House that the Manager was not acting in a fair and just way; that he was influenced by vindictive feelings towards his subordinate; that he trumped-up every little matter to prejudice the man; and that it was owing to the action of Mr. Conacher that Hood ever gave evidence, was then dismissed, and that the matter ever came before the Committee at all.
  MR. LOCKWOOD: Anyone who has taken the trouble to read through the evidence can have come to no other conclusion than that the hon. and learned Member who has just addressed the House rendered yeoman service on the Committee. From first to last he had the courage to tackle these men, and it is in the main owing to his indefatigable exertions that these men have been brought to book at the Bar of this House. I sympathise with the position in which the hon. and learned Member finds himself, because he says he is going to vote in accordance with the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. I find myself in precisely the same position, but the only difference between us is that while he is going to vote for the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, I intend to take an entirely opposite course. I am sure there was no one who listened to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade who did not feel that it was a

  943
  speech in palliation and in extenuation of the Directors of the Company. We have heard the apology read by an hon. Member of this House, and I do not join in the general eulogium passed on that hon. Member for one reason alone. I do not want it to go to the outside world that we are treating a Member of this House in a different way to that in which we would be disposed to treat persons who are not Members of this House. We heard the apology read by the hon. Member. The Chairman of the Company added not a word to the apology. The Manager of the Company stood mum at the Bar of the House. We heard from Mr. Buckley that he wished to join his voice to the apologetic voice of the hon. Member for Stretford. A Committee of this House have found that these men have taken a course which is likely to deter working men from coming forward to give evidence. These men, in making their apology, have asserted that they had no such intention, and that has been accepted by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian. But when the President of the Board of Trade came to deal with his case he proceeded, as far as he possibly could, to make a speech in defence of the men who had pleaded guilty at the Bar of the House. It is true, when the right hon. Gentleman came to deal with certain counts of the indictment, that he pronounced it to be a very serious matter, but again we had extenuation and assurances that this was an evil that had been wrought by want of thought more than by want of heart. I entirely disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. His speech has been, to my mind, so eminently unsatisfactory that I cannot vote for the Motion. We have had an Amendment moved, but we are told it is an Amendment to which no practical effect can be given by this House. I accept the Amendment for this reason, that it deals with this offence in the spirit in which it ought to be dealt with. It recognises the enormity of the offence, and there is no such recognition in the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. Is not this a matter that ought to be
  944
  looked upon seriously? I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, that if we are to distinguish between these persons, it is to the Manager that we ought to ascribe the greatest amount of blame. But they stand charged together; they are dealt with on the same terms by the Report of the Committee. What was their conduct? How was it that this man Hood was called on to give evidence at all? We find that certain things are laid to his charge which never have been laid to his charge before. Inaccurate statements are made by the hon. and learned Member for the City of Durham, who made an attack on Mr. Hood. I do not understand that the hon. and learned Member, when he was face to face with Mr. Hood in the Committee Room, made any criminal charge against him. I would ask my hon. and learned Friend whether, on reflection, he would not come to this conclusion, that if he thinks a criminal charge should be made against this man it would not be fair to make it to his face, instead of behind his back?
  MR. MILVAIN: It was made to his face when he came before the Directors of the Cambrian Railway Company, and was asked to justify his evidence.
  MR. LOCKWOOD: I beg to differ from the hon. and learned Member. I have read the evidence very carefully. I was not dealing with what any of the Directors had the courage to do. I was referring to what my hon. and learned Friend himself had done, and I want to know where he took upon himself the responsibility of making a criminal charge against Hood? Do not let him put it upon men who stand at the Bar of the House; they have enough to answer for. Let the hon. and learned Member point out to me any portion of the evidence in which he had the courage, when he was face to face with this man, to make a charge of criminality against him. Were the Directors prepared to make such a charge? If they were, let them bring it. Hood is prepared to meet any such charge, and I hope for the sake of his pocket the Directors will follow the advice, for whether we compensate him in this House or not, if

  945
  anyone is foolish enough to initiate criminal proceedings against Hood he will be amply recompensed in heavy damages for malicious prosecution. Let us consider the conduct of these persons at the Bar. In 1889 there was a dispute about a hamper and 1s. 7d., and somewhat strong language was used in the correspondence between Hood and other officials connected with the railway. On the 16th July Mr. Hood was going to give evidence before the impartial and learned Gentlemen on the other side of the House. On the 15th July Mr. Conacher writes to Mr. Birtwhistle about the hamper and the 1s. 7d. which happened in 1889—
  "Please send me all the papers relating to the hamper."
  That was before he knew or heard one tittle of the evidence of Hood. Hood had written to Conacher asking leave to give evidence, and he made other requests. The other matters are dealt with, but there is discreet silence in the answer with regard to the permission asked to give evidence. Hood comes and gives his evidence, and on the 7th August he is dismissed. On the 30th September he is brought before the Court of Appeal. I think from what I have seen of this Court of Appeal that the hon. Member for the Stretford Division of Lancashire must have acquired his judicial experience on the Continent, because the way he addressed the prisoner reminds me very much of the accounts one sees of judicial proceedings in France. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow who told us how this opportunity for justification was in reality merely an opportunity for repeated accusations and interruptions. Remember this when dealing with the men at the Bar, whether this is a case for palliation or extenuation. Hood is brought before his accusers, but precious little opportunity does he get for explanation. No, Sir, the hon. Member for the Stretford Division, when Hood is brought before the Directors, does not accuse him of gross neglect of duty; but, in effect, he is told that he had better say the replies
  946
  to the Select Committee given in the way he did were false, which meant that if Hood went down on his knees, before this almighty Board of Directors, apologised, and withdrew the statements, they would pardon him. Is that the way Committees of the House are to be treated? Is that the way we are to have working men coerced by the people to whom they look for their daily bread? If this is to be a precedent for the conduct of masters over the men they employ, then you may give up your Labour Commission and every other inquiry where working men are concerned, for you close every avenue through which truth can be ascertained. Then when you get this gentleman before the Committee the question arises, Why has this man been dismissed? If we are to judge of the bona fides of these gentlemen, let me recommend hon. Members to look at the process of toothdrawing which has to be resorted to in the Committee to ascertain from Mr. Conacher, or Mr. Buckley the Chairman, why this man had been dismissed at all. Conacher is the first witness. He deprecates the suggestion that Hood was dismissed because of his evidence. "I cannot tell you," he says, "I had nothing to do with it. It is the Directors. It is Mr. Buckley. Wait till he comes." When Mr. Buckley comes, then he fences for column after column with the somewhat astute examination of some Members of the Committee. Let me read you the cross-examination, not by a hostile Member, but by the Chairman of the Committee, who was endeavouring to ascertain how it came about that this man was dismissed. The House must hear this and judge of the guilt of these men. If this was a mere mistake then treat the Directors with leniency, but if it was a flagrant case, do not let us be afraid to deal with these men. This is the cross-examination of Mr. Buckley who Conacher told the Committee would be able to say how it came about that Hood was dismissed.
  "I want (said the Chairman) to ask you some questions about the first meeting at which Mr. Hood was dismissed. Who brought the case before you?—The case was brought before us, of course, by our Manager in the

  947
  first instance, by Mr. Conacher. He brought all these cases before us with very great reservation. I recollect his reluctance to say very much about it. He said—'Some cases here require your attention, and I wish you to deal with them as you think fit, quite independently of me.'—What did he bring before you in reference to Mr. Hood?—I think there was this case of Thomas on that occasion, and this case of Mr. Hood, cases of men who had certainly been connected with giving evidence here. But what did he bring before you with reference to Mr. Hood?—Of course, I knew beforehand what was going to come up before the Board. Mr. Conacher always acted to a certain extent under my instructions in matters which were to be brought forward or left out at the Boards, if they were not ready for discussion, and in this case of Mr. Hood's the matter was brought before the Board, and it was brought before the Board after considering not only the evidence but the antecedents of Mr. Hood.—But what was brought before the Board?—The question of Mr. Hood's conduct.—In what way?—In relation to the Company, and the question primarily of his fitness and trustworthiness for an office such as that of agent for a station of the Company.—But what had Mr. Hood done which necessitated the raising of that question?—Mr. Hood had acted in a manner which we thought, at all events, was not trustworthy towards his employers.—In what way?—I will say in what way. First of all, sending us in what we then discovered for the first time (it was discovered about that time) to be a false pay sheet. This was only discovered after Mr. Hood had given his evidence here."
  And so it was that this man fenced, rather than taking the position which the Directors are now anxious to make us believe they honestly took, now that they throw themselves upon our mercy, and ask us, although they have done this, to let them off as easily as possible. Let me return to my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Milvain) who made an attack upon Hood, which I hope by this time he regrets. The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, but I hope, on reflection, he will regret. Let me put this to my hon. and learned Friend. He says that the evidence of Hood was inaccurate, and he has charged him with making false statements, knowing them to be false. Was Mr. Hood the only man who made mistakes in his evidence? Conacher, whom my hon. and learned Friend is anxious to champion, made some very serious mistakes. First of all, he stated it was not true that Hood had been suspended for signing a memorial in favour of Humphreys. It was a serious thing to suspend a man for a
  948
  fortnight because he attached his name to a memorial in aid of a fellow-workman. I can well understand Conacher not wishing the Committee to believe that he had done such a thing. Conacher forgot that he recommended the Directors to dismiss this man. It is put in a question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division, in which, when addressing Buckley, he pointed out that Conacher, although he denied that he recommended this dismissal, afterwards, on being asked at the meeting whether Hood ought to be kept in the Company's service, said he told the Directors he ought not. I do not accuse Conacher of perjury because of this. It is a mistake, and that is all that can be alleged against Hood. That there may have been some inaccuracies in his evidence may be true, but that he has been guilty of fraud or lacking in bona fides I challenge any hon. Member who reads this book (the Special Report of the Select Committee on Railway Servants Hours of Labour) to pronounce an adverse opinion. The hon. Member for Camborne said he wished Hood was here to answer this charge. The hon. Member said it was admitted that Hood could not come here to meet the charge. I think it is only fair to Hood that the attention of the House should be called to a letter written by him, and which will be found in the Appendix 3. It is included in the Report. I think the concluding words of that letter should, in justice to this man, be read and recorded in this Debate. After dealing with the question of pension, he says—
  "This is a cruel and unjust charge, and I can only say that never in all my life have I made out a false pay sheet."
  I have pointed out what I consider the great element in the case against these Directors. I find no adequate expression of opinion by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench below me, and, much as I regret it, I am not able to take their advice.
  SIR J. PEASE: Having sat patiently through nearly the whole of the long inquiries on this Committee, I desire to make a few observations on the present

  949
  position of the case. I regret that I have not that clearness of position which the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division, the hon. Member for York, and the hon. Member for Durham appear to have. I gave thanks during that Committee that it had never been my lot to sit under such a Chairman as that of the Cambrian Railway Company. The hon. Member for York and the hon. Member for Durham—whose ability to digest evidence I would not for one moment deny—have formed very different opinions, and I wish I could form as strong an opinion as either of them. I had all the documents through my hands, and more confused management, more unjustifiable working, and a more confused Board I think it impossible to conceive. That confusion is rendered greater, if possible, by the numerous lucid speeches made on the evidence in the case. It seems to me, after a careful study of Sir Erskine May's book, that there are two special precedents which ought to actuate us in looking at this question. One dates back to 1728, when Sir William Rich, a prisoner in the Fleet, was brought before a Committee of this House, sitting on Gaols, in order to give evidence. He was taken back to the Fleet, and the Governor, Mr. Pembridge, loaded him with leg-irons and handcuffs, and he endured great hardship and suffering. The House came to the conclusion that that was a breach of Privilege, and Mr. Pembridge was ordered into custody on the 28th of the month, and on the 8th of the following month I find an order that he was to be brought before the Committee on Gaols as often as that Committee might desire. I can find in the Journals no order for his discharge, and for all I know he may be in the Clock Tower now. The other case is more modern, but also dates back to the last century. There the House declared it was a grievous and heinous offence against the Privileges of the House to call to account or censure a witness who had given evidence before a Committee of this House. It appears to me that these Directors have been guilty of breach of Privilege in both respects. Their conduct toward stationmaster Hood in examining him in that rough-
  950
  and-ready, and, as it has been described, bullying manner, was calculated, no doubt, quite as much as by leg-irons and handcuffs, to prevent other railway servants giving evidence before the Committee. The other offence of which they were guilty was no doubt during that interview when they censured him for the evidence he gave. If I were asked to say Hood would not have been properly discharged for the irregularities if he had not given the evidence, I should say he was deserving of discharge, but I do not think I should go so far as to say I would have discharged him myself. This is one of the cases where leniency and discipline would have been carried out by moving him to some other place where he might have worked out for himself a rather better character than he seemed to bear in connection with the station mentioned. I very much doubt his character, but for the consideration of the question before the House we may assume that it was a perfect character. We have all come to the conclusion that there is a grave breach of the Privileges of the House, and the question is, how are we going to act in order to vindicate the position of the House, and to enable other witnesses to come before Committees without being in danger of losing their situations, or being in any way bullied by any Board of Directors? If we take the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it seems to many of my hon. Friends that we do not express ourselves strongly enough, and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division has added words which the hon. Member for York says he can accept. It is very difficult for me to accept those words. There is an old proverb in Yorkshire which says, "It is no use showing your teeth unless you are prepared to bite." We cannot ask the Directors to re-instate the man. Then are we going to fine them? The right hon. Member for Midlothian says you cannot fine them. Are you going to lock them up? That is logical, and had better be moved by those who so desire to amend the Resolution. That logically follows the precedent of Mr. Pembridge. In the meantime. I do hope the House will

  951
  come to some such conclusion on this question, whether we accept the Resolution of the President of the Board of Trade, or whether we amend it, as is logical and practical, on this occasion. The proposal to exact compensation when we have no power to do anything of the kind seems to me to be below the dignity of this House, and the other alternative, that the stationmaster should be re-instated, no one evidently desires to support. If these Directors had compensated this man, we should have had very little to say, but they have very unwisely stuck to the line of action they at first took; but I am not prepared to support the Amendment, and I have, therefore, no alternative but to support the Motion of the President of the Board of Trade.
  MR. PICTON: If I am in Order, of which I am not certain, I should like to move an Amendment to the Amendment. I wish to move to leave out all the words after "that," up to and including "otherwise," so that the Amendment would read—
  "And declines to regard the Directors as having purged their contempt until they have compensated," &c.
  The object is to leave out the suggestion that the man should be re-instated, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether I should be in Order?
  MR. SPEAKER: It would be in Order.
  MR. PICTON: Then I shall be very glad to move this further Amendment. We have two propositions before us. The first is that of the President of the Board of Trade, which is to the effect that these gentlemen shall be brought up and admonished by you, Mr. Speaker, and I am quite sure that any admonition you may address to these gentlemen will make a very profound impression on them. But I cannot help thinking that you, as the voice of the House, will necessarily be influenced in your admonition by the apparent feeling of the House; and it strikes me that if the Resolution is left simply as it has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman, it will not sufficiently express the sense entertained by a very large, important, and representative portion of this House, that a very grave
  952
  wrong has been committed in tampering with a witness who came up before a Committee of this House. I cannot too deeply regret that ancient usage compels us to speak so much of the Privileges of this House. It is not the Privileges of the House we are dealing with so much to-night as with the rights of the people of this country. In old times undoubtedly the Privilege of this House was a kind of abstraction representing the rights of the commonalty of this country to have justice done to them notwithstanding the preponderance of powers that were very formidable in those times, but are not so formidable now. But those times are gone, and the phrase "the Privilege of this House" has a somewhat invidious meaning, that it has taken upon itself some special rights that are not allowed to other subjects of the Queen. What we really mean is that this House stands as the guardian of the people of this country; and if we are to have gentlemen who have committed a grave offence against the people coming up to this House and being allowed, after making an apology such as we have heard this evening, to go otherwise scatheless away, I want to know what security the poor man will have hereafter that he can give his testimony before a Committee of this House without suffering for it? This man Hood has lost his situation. He has obtained another one. I am told that he has taken the position of agent to a Liberal Unionist organisation. (Laughter.) I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) joins in the cheer at the promotion of Mr. Hood. At any rate it is clear that Gentlemen on this side of the House, and in this quarter of it especially (below the Gangway), have no prejudice in the matter. We are judging the case quite impartially and regardless of any Party consideration, and I only wish that all Party considerations could be entirely eliminated from the issue. Clearly our only object is that witnesses in future, coming before Committees of this House, should feel that their positions will be safeguarded by this House. But how can that be the case if a record like this, which has come to us in a

  953
  Special Report of the Committee, goes forth to the world with no stronger comment than is afforded by the Resolution of the President of the Board of Trade? We find in the evidence with respect to the meeting at Crewe between the Directors of the Cambrian Railway and Mr. Hood this question—
  "The Chairman: Are there any other points you wish to make statements upon, Mr. Hood?"
  I wish hon. Members would give attention to what I consider the most pathetic reply—
  "I can only say I very much regret going before the Committee. (He means the Committee of this House.) But I feel the matter deeply, and I hope the Directors will not dismiss me."
  Is that the position in which a man should be placed who has given honest testimony according to the best of his ability before a Committee of this House? He is reduced to say before these men—
  "I can only say I now very much regret going before this Committee."
  Is this House prepared quietly to hear that said by witnesses coming before the Committees of this House? Are they only to throw themselves upon the mercy of the men they have offended by coming before the Parliament of their country? I think this would not only be lowering the position of this House, but it would be an injury to the people of this country suffering under grievances which can only be redressed by those people coming before this House, perhaps to the offence of their employers. If he had moved that the gentlemen who came to the Bar should be reprimanded by you, I should have thought it would be more adequate, because it would be a censure upon them; it would be realised by all their countrymen, and they themselves would have felt it more deeply. But I confess myself it is much less an offence against this House than against the rights of Englishmen through this House. Much less offences have been visited in times past by imprisonment. I am not in favour of coercion in this country or in Ireland, and, therefore, I desire to avoid imprisonment as much as possible; but I wish that the
  954
  Resolution proposed had been more adequate. I do not agree with the idea of endeavouring to re-instate Mr. Hood, because I think it would be a very uncomfortable position for him to occupy. But I would suggest that we should not recognise the repentance of these gentlemen as adequate unless they compensate in some way Mr. Hood for wrong that has been done him. I therefore beg to move an Amendment to that effect.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out from the words "they have," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "compensated John Hood."—(Mr. Picton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. CRAWFORD: As a Member of the Committee I may be, perhaps, allowed to say a few words. The question is one of considerable difficulty, as most of the speakers on this side acknowledged; and I agree most humbly and deferentially with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian subject to one condition: that the Motion proposed by the President of the Board of Trade might have been adequate. But there is one point which I must call the attention of the House to: I must express my regret, as my right hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division expressed his regret, that the speech in which that Motion was introduced was in my view so entirely apologetic for these men that have been brought before the House that if this Resolution is to be passed upon that Preamble these men might pass from the House with a feather in their caps rather than with any feeling that they have incurred the censure of this House. That, in my opinion, is the origin of the discussion which I think many of us have rather felt to be too long. I think we should have come to a unanimous conclusion if the Chairman of the Committee had not introduced his Motion in what, to my great and sincere regret, I must describe as a very one-sided speech; because I entirely and warmly concur

  955
  with my right hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division when he said that the right hon. Gentleman presided over this Committee, whose Sittings have now extended over two Sessions, with the utmost fairness and impartiality. And that increases my regret, which I cannot conceal, that I did not think his speech was calculated to bring the House to a unanimous conclusion, because it is obvious he might have anticipated what has happened on account of this man being dismissed from his employment for giving evidence before a Committee of this House was likely to arise as it has arisen, and that it was likely to arouse, as it has aroused, a very strong feeling on these Benches. It is not necessary to say that the man was a perfect character; because many men in his position would not stand the test if subjected to strict examination. Now that the question has been forced upon the House, I feel it my duty to say that the man was most thoroughly ill-used. He was ill-used by these Directors. If the man's dismissal is absolutely justifiable it may be that no breach of Privilege of the House has been committed at all, because that is a thing which would not deter other witnesses from giving evidence before a Committee of this House. But from the turn this discussion has taken I have no hesitation in saying that these Directors behaved most shamefully towards him. They resolved to crush him; they took a spite against him; they raked up everything they could against him. At the same time, I quite feel that it is a very unwise and doubtful policy on our part to enter upon any course which the House has not full power to carry out. Except for that reason, I should have been very willing to assent to the proposal made by the Chairman of the Committee and accepted by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party. I think the proposal has been tenderly treated on both sides of the House. That is unfortunate. I think it is calculated to produce a wrong impression on the public of the view we take of the case; and accordingly, if the hon. Member for Leicester goes to a Division, I shall
  956
  feel bound, with some reluctance, to follow him into the Lobby in support of his Motion.
  MR. PHILIPPS: An hon. Member has asked if Mr. Hood, having got employment as an election agent for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, could be said to have received compensation? That might be so, except for the fact that the General Election is not very far off; and, under these circumstances, the post of Liberal Unionist agent can hardly be considered permanent compensation. But I am sure many hon. Members on the other side of the House feel just as keenly as we do on this side of the House that this poor man ought to have compensation from someone or other. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for York City suggested that if the Directors of the Cambrian Railway would only take the advice of the hon. and learned Member for the City of Durham they would bring a criminal charge against this man, and that Mr. Hood might then have his compensation in the form of an action for malicious prosecution. I want to point out another way, which I think an almost infallible way, for securing Mr. Hood adequate compensation for the loss of his situation. I am glad to see the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the City of Durham in his place. He takes advantage of his position in this House to say that, from his knowledge of the evidence, a criminal charge might have been brought against Mr. Hood. He knows what the position is; he is a lawyer, and he knows that for what he says in this House he is covered by Privilege of Parliament, and Mr. Hood cannot make him responsible. The hon. and learned Member for Durham should repeat out of the House what he has said in the House to-night against Hood, and then Hood would be able to obtain compensation in the shape of damages for slander. The hon. Member should have the courage of his convictions, and not shelter himself under his privileges as a Member of Parliament, and then he would give the poor man a chance of obtaining a remedy.
  MR. MILVAIN: I would point out to the hon. Member that Hood has a remedy, for he can bring an action for wrongful dismissal.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I will intervene for only a short time in this Debate. As a Member of the Committee, I think I ought to say something with regard to this matter. I have come to the conclusion that this poor man Hood was dismissed simply because of the evidence he gave before the Committee with reference to the hours of labour on the Cambrian Railway. The hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Milvain) has shown himself to-night in his true colours. He seems to have been holding a brief against this unfortunate man. The hon. and learned Gentleman should have the courage of his convictions, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Philipps) says, and not shelter himself under his Parliamentary privileges. I hope that he will repeat outside the House what he has said inside these walls against Hood, and that Hood in proceeding against him will not employ counsel, but act in his own behalf. Let us now come to the evidence. The Directors said to this man Hood—
  "You must understand that your dismissal is not due to your giving evidence before the Select Committee. You were summoned to give evidence, and you must now address yourself to the question of justification of the charges you have made."
  These gentlemen, therefore, constituted themselves a Court of Appeal—a sort of Punch and Judy Star Chamber—with regard to the evidence which was given before a Committee of this House. If this kind of thing is to continue Parliamentary Privilege and evidence given before the Committees of this House will be of no value at all. I always considered that when a witness went into the witness chair in the Committee Room upstairs he was absolutely protected; and I hope that the House will vindicate its Privileges in this matter. If this goes on it will be impossible to say that there is not one law for the rich and another for the poor. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has stated with his usual knowledge and accuracy that we cannot compel the
  958
  Directors of the Cambrian Railway Company to compensate this man Hood. That is true, but the right hon. Gentleman and every lawyer knows very well that it is possible to make arrangements whereby compensation can be given. In former days Privilege was a very trustworthy weapon, but I ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House whether it is at all valuable in the circumstances of the present case. Certain gentlemen come forward and make a miserable kind of an apology in which they justify their conduct, saying they were acting as they did in the public service. How can that in any way atone for their behaviour? The hon. Member for Stretford showed by his attitude and gestures that he is determined to persevere in the course of action he has adopted towards this man. Then up started the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and proposed a Resolution which fitted in with the apology in a very extraordinary manner. It almost seemed as if the Resolution and the apology must have been constructed at one and the same time. Is it likely that in vindicating the Privileges of this House we should allow it to be treated in this way? Judging from the apology and from the Resolution, the apology and the Resolution were constructed together—they bear a remarkable family likeness. There has been no atonement on the part of these men, no repentance; they vindicate their conduct. They have been convicted of intimidating witnesses; they have deprived Hood of his means of livelihood; and, that being so, I say that the Privileges of this House have not been vindicated. I shall certainly vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not rise to continue the Debate. I rise simply to appeal to the House to come to a decision on the question. I am sure that every hon. Member, whether he agrees with the Resolution proposed by my right hon. Friend, or whether he agrees with the Amendment, must feel that every view of this subject has been adequately discussed. If the Resolution of my right hon. Friend is carried

  959
  it will be the duty of Mr. Speaker to admonish these gentlemen who were called to the Bar this afternoon; and I think it will be only proper that the proceedings of the House on this question should be concluded this evening in time to allow Mr. Speaker an opportunity of carrying this duty out.
  MR. HUNTER: I do not believe there is any hon. Member in this House who believes—and I doubt whether there is any hon. Member who is capable of believing—that Hood would have been dismissed from his office if there had not been this inquiry and this Committee, and I will not enter into any metaphysical inquiry as to the state of the mind of the Directors; but one thing is obvious beyond the possibility of doubt, that Hood was dismissed because he gave evidence. Now, in what position does the House stand? It is admitted by the Directors that they committed an offence against Parliamentary law. I go further, and I say that they have pleaded guilty to a social crime. I know of no crime which a rich man can commit which is more grievous, more serious, more anti-social, more baneful in its consequences, than depriving a working man, without just reason, of his means of livelihood. That is the crime to which these men have pleaded guilty. Well, Sir, I ask this question: What is to be the punishment which they ought to undergo? By immemorial usage, this House has the power to send these men to prison. Why, I ask, should they not be sent to prison? There is only one reason, and only one advanced, and that is that they are wealthy gentlemen, eminently respectable, and that it is not to be supposed that they would voluntarily and intentionally commit such an offence. But, Sir, they have committed an offence, and they have given no compensation or equivalent. I quite admit, if the Directors had come forward in this House and not only apologised in words, but apologised in deeds and satisfied this House that Hood had been compensated for the injustice and injury done to him, then I should have agreed to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of
  960
  Trade. But they have made no compensation—they have made no restitution. I believe that in the Roman Catholic Church, before absolution is granted, they require the sinner to make restitution; they have not made restitution, and everybody must see that the whole proceedings of this House, if they do not end in the imprisonment of these Directors, will be an absolute farce, an idle ceremony, an insult to the working classes, and a menace to the Privileges of this House. I regret more than I can express the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian. He allowed his generous feelings to run away with him, and looked too much to the position of the Directors, who on other accounts might deserve our sympathy, and too little to the position of the man who had been dismissed. What was the gist of the right hon. Gentleman's speech? It was—"I am very sorry for Hood, but we cannot do anything to help him." Well, the House of Commons is sorry, but it refuses to take the sword out of the scabbard. Why cannot the House of Commons give redress to Hood? Because the House of Commons being a House of rich men will not; they cannot because they will not. Do not let hon. Members opposite deceive themselves: the working classes of this country are intelligent enough to see through this hollow sham, and are sufficiently manly in their disposition to resent keenly and bitterly the insult which has been put upon them.
  (11.25.) Mr. A. J. BALFOUR rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  DR. CLARK(speaking seated): May I ask you, Sir, if, before you put the Main Question, it will be in Order to move an Amendment which I had intended to move in reference to imprisonment?
  MR. SPEAKER: No, that would not be in Order; the House will proceed to a decision on the Main Question.
  (11.26.) The House divided:—Ayes 247; Noes 186.—(Div. List, No. 72.)
  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The House divided:—Ayes 245; Noes 189.—(Div. List, No. 73.)
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR claimed, "That the Question on the Amendment be now put."
  Question put accordingly, "That the words 'and this House will not deem that the said Directors and Manager of the Cambrian Railway have purged their contempt until they have re-instated John Hood in the position which he occupied before giving his evidence before this House, or otherwise compensated him,' be added at the end of the Main Question."
  DR. CLARK: Can this be amended?
  MR. SPEAKER: No.
  (11.53.) The House divided:—Ayes 159; Noes 274.—(Div. List, No. 74.)
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR claimed, "That the Main Question be now put."
  MR. ROBERTSON(speaking seated): May I ask you, Sir, whether the Main Question can now be put without a previous Motion being carried?
  MR. SPEAKER: The Motion for putting the Question being carried applies to the Questions put from the Chair. This Question with the others has been put from the Chair.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does it follow that the Question is put on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. SPEAKER: It is claimed and put if allowed. I allow it.
  Main Question put accordingly. (Loud cries of "No.")
  DR. TANNER: No humbug!
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! With regard to the expression just used, I refrain from naming the hon. Gentleman who used it, because on an occasion such as this I do not wish to take any strong measures. I hope the House will behave to the end in a judicial spirit.
  (12.10.) The House divided:—Ayes 349; Noes 70.—(Div. List, No. 75.)
  Resolved—
  "That this House, while recognising that Mr. John William Maclure, Mr. James
  962
  Frederick Buckley, Mr. William Bailey Hawkins, and Mr. John Conacher, have disclaimed any intention to deter any railway servant from giving evidence before its Committee, and have expressed their unqualified regret for having unintentionally infringed any of its Rules and Privileges, is of opinion that the said Mr. John William Maclure, Mr. James Frederick Buckley, Mr. William Bailey Hawkins, and Mr. John Conacher have committed a breach of the Privileges of this House in their action towards John Hood, and that they be called in and admonished by Mr. Speaker for the breach of Privilege that they have committed."
  Mr. John William Maclure, Mr. James Frederick Buckley, Mr. William Bailey Hawkins, and Mr. John Conacher were accordingly called in, and Mr. Maclure standing in his place, and Mr. James Frederick Buckley, Mr. William Bailey Hawkins, and Mr. John Conacher, standing at the Bar, were admonished as followeth by
  MR. SPEAKER:
  "Directors of the Cambrian Railway Company: the House has had under its consideration the case which has been presented to it, and I am now directed to inform you of the Resolution at which it has arrived. I will read to you the words of that Resolution:—'This House, while recognising that Mr. John William Maclure, Mr. James Frederick Buckley, Mr. William Bailey Hawkins, and Mr. John Conacher have disclaimed any intention to deter any railway servant from giving evidence before its Committee, and have expressed their unqualified regret for having unintentionally infringed any of its Rules and Privileges, is of opinion that the said Mr. John William Maclure, Mr. James Frederick Buckley, Mr. William Bailey Hawkins, and Mr. John Conacher, have committed a breach of the Privileges of this House in their action towards John Hood, and that they be called in and admonished by Mr. Speaker for the breach of Privilege that they have committed.'
  "It now becomes my duty, as the mouthpiece of the House, and as the interpreter of its wishes, to state to you what is the opinion of the House upon your conduct. It is quite true that you have made an apology to the House for the undoubted breach of its Privileges. I need hardly tell you that a mere apology does not always cover the extent and surface of an offence; but the House has taken a lenient view in that respect of your conduct and has expressed in its Resolution its willingness to accept your apology. But that is not

  963
  all. The House has directed me to admonish you for a grave breach of the Privileges of this House. I would have you know,—each and all of you gentlemen,—that though the Privileges of this House are not to be put into operation upon any light or trivial occasion, and though the intervals are long between the periods when appeals are made to those Privileges, yet a Privilege of this House is no unreal, shadowy, or unsubstantial thing; it is what the House clings to, and what it is determined to maintain. The breach of Privilege which you have committed is, that you have by your conduct intimidated a witness before this House; that your conduct towards him is calculated to deter witnesses in giving evidence before this House or its Committees. So dear is that especial Privilege to this House, that I must remind you that at the commencement of every Session, and therefore at the commencement of this Session, on the very first day of its meeting, two Resolutions were passed by this House, in one of which it declared, 'That if it shall appear that any person hath given false evidence in any case before this House, or any Committee thereof, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.' The second of those Resolutions expresses the determination of the House, 'That if it shall appear that any person hath been tampering with any witness in respect of his evidence to be given to this House or any Committee thereof, or' (and this is the point to which I would especially direct your attention) 'directly or indirectly hath endeavoured to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence, the same is declared to be a high crime and misdemeanour, and this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.' Those are Resolutions which are fresh in the memory of this House, and which I am surprised that those gentlemen whom I now see before me at the Bar should have so lightly infringed. It is a very grave and serious offence that you have committed. The House in its judgment and, I should add, in its mercy has decided that I should admonish you. I do most seriously admonish you, and I warn you that any repetition of this offence, for it is an offence, will be visited by this House with its very severe rebuke, reproval and punishment. A great principle has been infringed, the principle that evidence given before this House shall be free and unrestrained. I warn you against repeating an offence of this character. The offence is a very serious one, for it is no less an offence than trying, however unadvisedly it may be in certain cases, to deter witnesses from giving
  964
  evidence before a Committee of this House, and thus to disturb and taint the very sources of truth. I believe I act, as I wish to act, as the interpreter of the feelings of this House when I seriously admonish you, and express the hope that your example will serve as a deterrent to others, and that it will also act as a warning to yourselves never again to presume to commit the like offence against the character, the dignity, and the purity of this House."
  Then Mr. James Frederick Buckley, Mr. William Bailey Hawkins, and Mr. James Conacher were ordered to withdraw, and they withdrew accordingly.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I now beg to move—
  "That the admonition delivered by Mr. Speaker be entered upon the Journals of this House."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask, as a point of Order, is that consequential business?
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes; and I hope the House will allow the remarks which it was my duty to deliver to be entered on the Journals of the House.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That the admonition delivered by Mr. Speaker be entered upon the Journals of this House.

  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL. (No. 31.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Mr. WINTERBOTHAM rose to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    Mr. STOREY rose——
    MR. SPEAKER: A point of procedure arises here which is, I think, a new one. I feel it would be rather hard to insist upon the application of the technical Rule that there being no Instruction to the Committee before the House I should immediately leave the Chair. Two Notices of Instructions were placed on the Paper late last night. The hon. Member has rather complained that he was not informed of the objection to his Motion, but it is no part of the duty of the Clerk to call attention to the terms of a Notice of Motion. The Instructions are out of

    965
    Order, inasmuch as they are mandatory instead of being permissive; but under the circumstances I think I should be straining the Rule if I did not allow an opportunity for an Instruction to be moved. I am conscious that in so doing there may be a little unfairness to the advocates of the Bill, but the circumstances are peculiar, and I think it will be convenient if I do not now leave the Chair.
    MR. STOREY: I thank you, Sir. Shall I be in Order if I move now?
    MR. SPEAKER: No, the hon. Gentleman will give notice.
    MR. STOREY: I will do so at once.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  GENERAL POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1862) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 188.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 91.)
  Order for Second Reading upon Wednesday next read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AGE PENSIONS.
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 138.)

  MOTIONS.

    ALKALI, &C, WORKS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Ritchie, Bill to amend "The Alkali, &c, Works Regulation Act, 1881," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Long.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 264.]

    ST. MICHAEL'S, COVENTRY (VICAR'S RATE) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Ballantine, Bill to repeal the Act nineteen George the Third, chapter
    966
    sixty, intituled "An Act for establishing certain payments to be made to the Vicar of the Parish of St. Michael's, in the City of Coventry, for the time being in lieu of tithes," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ballantine, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Robert Reid, Mr. Seale-Hayne, and Mr. Cobb.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 265.]

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
    DR. TANNER: May I ask the Secretary to the Treasury why it is he objects to give the Return I have asked for of a copy of the correspondence relating to the acceleration of the mail service between Dublin and Queenstown? As a matter of fact, this is a matter of material interest to the commercial community of Cork. I am not speaking for any political section, but for the people of the City of Cork, and I ask what is the objection.
    MR. SPEAKER: If objection is taken to giving the Return the question cannot be now discussed.
    DR. TANNER: With all submission, Sir, I thought I was entitled to make these remarks on the Motion for Adjournment, but if I am out of Order I will at once sit down. I merely wish to say, on the Motion for Adjournment, and seeing the right hon. Gentleman in his place, that I shall be glad to know what reason there is for refusing the publication of the correspondence on this very simple matter, but a matter very important to the poor and struggling commercial community in the City and County of Cork. Why should the right hon. Gentleman object? Many questions have been put on the subject, and we receive many communications asking us to try and secure some solution of the difficulty, some remedy for this stop-gap and impossible position for business in Cork. I know we are all tired with our evening's work; but Irish Members, and notably those representing Cork, are called upon to request some distinct answer from the right hon. Gentleman beyond that very inappropriate, if I may so say, answer—that he objects to giving this Return. I think the citizens of Cork may fairly claim to know this. The House will excuse me, late though it is, if I ask

    967
    the right hon. Gentleman why it is he interferes to prevent this information being given—information desired by all sections in Cork, be they Tories, Liberals, or Nationalists?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GORST,): I can only repeat what I have said at Question time—that there is no correspondence on the subject which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, could be laid on the Table of the House with advantage to the Public Service.
    DR. CLARK: I may be allowed to say, as one of the Tellers for the minority of 70 in the last Division, that many of us, disagreeing as we did with the terms of the Motion, were prevented from moving and supporting a direct Amendment as we desired, and had no course left open to us but to vote against the Motion. We regret very much that we were unable to amend the Motion inadequate terms; and of course if the Motion had been lost we should have brought forward a Motion of a more drastic character. I only desire to say this to prevent any false impression getting abroad as to our action in voting against the Motion.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: May I ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his remarks and objection to the publication of the correspondence just referred to relate to the correspondence between the Post Office and the Treasury, or to the correspondence between the Post Office and the Great Southern and Western Railway Company? It may be undesirable to publish the correspondence between the two Government Departments. I can understand this may be of a confidential character, but the same objection does not apply to the correspondence between the Post Office and the Great Southern and Western Railway Company. Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to give that part of the correspondence?
    SIR J. GORST: If the hon. Member will put down notice of his question I shall be prepared to give him an answer.
    MR. CONYBEARE: We put down many
    968
    questions, and do not elicit answers. I do not understand what conception of his duty the right hon. Gentleman may have when he constitutes himself judge and authority as to what is or is not desirable to place before the House in the matter of information. Upon matters of public importance we want information, and it is scarcely sufficient to be told on the ipse dixit of the right hon. Gentleman that it is not in the interest of the Public Service that we should have it. The Departmental correspondence may be confidential in character; but without wishing to dogmatise, I do say that it is not fair to refuse information such as would be given in the correspondence between the Post Office and the company. I wish to protest against the assumption by the right hon. Gentleman, or any Member of the Government, that such information cannot be given in the interest of the Public Service.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), but, at the same time, I may take leave to say that I think the terms of the admonition employed by Mr. Speaker largely made up for the inadequacy of the Resolution proposed by the Government.
    MR. FLYNN: I wish to add my opinion that in asking for the correspondence referred to just now we make a most reasonable request. We want to show the country how the South of Ireland is treated in this matter of mail service. While £19,000 is advanced for the service to the North of Ireland we ask some £3,000 for an accelerated service between Queenstown and Dublin. The Postmaster General admitted to a deputation that the request was reasonable, but he said there was a Treasury difficulty. Now, we want to influence the Treasury if we can, and to give them the opportunity to justify their action if they can. I hope the Treasury will see the importance of the matter, which we shall continue to press.
    Motion agreed to.
    House adjourned at five minutes before One o'clock.