Commons Sitting of 12 April 1892

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
QUESTIONS.

  FARM SERVANTS WAGES.
  MR. SHIRESS WILL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been directed to recent decisions given in the Sheriff Courts of Forfarshire and neighbouring counties in regard to the administration of the law as between farmers and farm servants on the question of forfeiture of wages; whether any custom entitling farmers without express agreement to retain a portion of the wages agreed to be paid to farm servants during the first six months of a year of service, and to forfeit such portion in the event of the farm servant leaving at the end of the six months, must be immemorial, certain, and invariable both as regards the question of a right on the part of the farmers to retain a part of the wages, but also as to the amount or proportion of the wages so to be retained; and whether, in the present uncertainty of the law, he is prepared, in the interest of agriculture, to introduce any legislation on the subject?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,: My attention has only been directed to the decisions referred to by the question of the hon. Member. I do not understand them to have involved any question of forfeiting wages. As I understand it, the farm servants were engaged for twelve months from Martinmas, but no stipulation was made as to paying their wages half-yearly; and I am not aware of any rule of law in such cases that they are to be so paid. It depends on practice or custom. The law as to custom affecting contracts is not uncertain; it is laid down quite clearly in the ordinary text-books. The uncertainty arises in its application to the facts; and if this causes hardship, the parties have the remedy in their own
  1230
  hands by either stipulating when the wages are to be paid or By making the engagement a half-yearly one.
  MR. SHIRESS WILL: I think the right hon. Gentleman has not apprehended the second part of my question, as to the custom being certain and invariable?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: That is a pure question of law, upon which I would refer the hon. Member to the text-books.

  EDINBURGH AND DUNDEE MAILS.
  MR. SHIRESS WILL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will consider whether the Post Office sorting van at present attached to the train leaving Edinburgh at 7 a.m. for Dundee, thus serving Fifeshire and Dundee only, and laying idle at Dundee from about 9 a.m. till about 3.30 p.m., might be continued further to the north, so as to serve Broughty Ferry, Monifieth, Carnoustie, Arbroath, Montrose, and Bervie, or some of these towns?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: Although the sorting carriage referred to stops at Dundee, bags are made up in it for places beyond that station—namely, for Broughty Ferry, Carnoustie, and Aberdeen. There will be no objection to bags being made up for Arbroath, Montrose, &c. The letters forwarded in them will not reach Arbroath and Montrose until after the morning delivery has begun, as those towns are served with their principal mails by earlier trains, but will, of course, be available for callers and for subsequent deliveries. The expense involved in running the sorting carriage beyond Dundee would be considerable, and the arrangement would not really be of any practical value.

  MERCANTILE MARINE OFFICERS.
  MR. BLANE(for Mr. P. O'BRIEN,): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any objection to give the names of ports in Great Britain and Ireland in which the officers of the Mercantile Marine are required to work seven hours per day, and those in which the hours are six

  1231
  per day; what are the special grounds for the two sets of working hours; and are the officers who work seven hours paid better, and how much; and, if not, whether he can arrange for an all round six hours per day?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The whole question of the hours of attendance at the Mercantile Marine Offices is now under consideration, and I am endeavouring to assimilate as far as possible the conditions of service at all the ports.

  POST OFFICE COUNTER DUTIES.
  MR. BLANE (for Mr. P. O'BRIEN): I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain on what grounds officers employed on counter duties in the Metropolitan post offices are allowed 3s. per week to cover risks of mistakes in cash transactions, while officers in the provinces, whose risks are quite as great, and whose salaries, out of which losses have to be made good, are smaller, are not given any risk allowance; and whether he will see that all officers employed on counter duties are treated alike?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Attendance at the public counter is a recognised part of the duties of a sorting clerk and telegraphist at a provincial office, and the pecuniary risk attaching to this duty has been taken into account in fixing the wages of the class. In London the force employed on counter work is quite distinct from the force employed on sorting duties, and the rates of pay are different. Moreover counter duties in London, as a rule, are performed under much greater pressure than in provincial offices.

  VIENNA POSTAL CONFERENCE.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General when the proceedings of the Vienna Postal Conference of last year will be laid upon the Table of the House; whether he is aware that these proceedings have been presented to the German Parliament; and whether the record of the proceedings will include a statement of the concessions obtained at Vienna, and referred to by the late Postmaster General as giving this country "a freer hand" in communicating
  1232
  with the British Colonies, apart from the Postal Union; if not, whether he has any objection to append such a statement to the proceedings in question?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: It has not been customary to lay before Parliament the proceedings of Postal Congresses. The abridged Report of the proceedings of the Vienna Congress, which is the sole record of these proceedings, is written in the French language, and fills nearly a thousand large pages. It is not thought that this great mass of technical matter and administrative detail would interest the House of Commons. The Convention of Vienna, which was signed on behalf of this country, will doubtless be presented to Parliament in due course by the Treasury, but presumably not till after ratification. This Department has no knowledge of the proceedings having been presented to the German Parliament. The revised Conventions and agreements which were the outcome of the Vienna Congress have been presented. The third paragraph of the question relates to my predecessor's answer to a question on 17th July last on the results of the Vienna Congress. Mr. Raikes said nothing about a "freer hand." He said the Congress had "signed a new Convention, under which Her Majesty's Government will be free in important particulars relative to foreign and colonial postage." If that is the main purport of the question, my hon. Friend may understand that is so.

  PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why it is the rule in Ireland that working men in boroughs who are duly entitled to be put upon the Parliamentary registers, under the qualification for successive occupation, are compelled to send in a claim, and to attend the Revision Court and prove the said claim, whereas in English boroughs it is usual for the overseers to put on the register persons who are qualified by successive occupation; whether he is aware that the law on this subject was discussed by the Court of Appeal in Ireland in 1889, in the case of "Lyons v. Chambers," when it

  1233
  was decided that the law was the same in Ireland as in England; and whether the 1st sub-section of the 7th section and the 5th sub-section of the 8th section of "The Representation of the People Act, 1884," and the 3rd section of "The Parliamentary Registration Act, 1885," have been, as regards working men changing houses, put into operation in Ireland at all?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): So far as I am aware, there is no rule in Ireland under which working men in boroughs are compelled to send in a claim and attend at the Revision Court, and I may add there is no difference in the registration law between the case of working men and any other class of persons entitled to the franchise. The case of "Lyons v. Chambers" decided that a claim was unnecessary in the case of persons whose qualification depended upon successive occupation. I have no reason to suppose that the persons who are entrusted with the duty of administering or interpreting the Acts mentioned have been neglecting those duties.
  MR. BLANE: Does the right hon. Gentleman imply that in the case of qualification by successive occupation persons giving notice to the Town Clerk or Clerk of the Peace get on the register in the same way as in England when notice is given to the overseer?
  MR. JACKSON: I understand there is no difference in the law.
  MR. BLANE: It is entirely different in practice. I know from 20 years' experience.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: Do the authorities carry out the law in the same manner?
  MR. JACKSON: As I have said, I have no reason to believe they neglect their duties.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: In the case of "Lyon v. Chambers," did the Court of Appeal intimate that it was not a proper thing to put the person on the register without a claim?
  MR. JACKSON: I am advised that the decision was contrary to that.
  MR. BLANE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the Statute and practice is not entirely different in England and Ireland?
  MR. JACKSON: I cannot answer a general question of that kind. If the hon. Member will give me information as to any specific case I will make inquiries.

  "CORDITE" POWDER.
  MR. BAUMANN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether "Cordite" powder has been patented in any foreign country; and, if so, by whom?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK,): Patents in connection with "Cordite" powder have been taken out abroad by Sir Frederick Abel and Professor Dewar, the inventors, to protect the invention.
  MR. BAUMANN, rising later, said: I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any arrangement has been made between the Secretary of State for War and Sir Frederick Abel as to the profits to be derived from the patent for "Cordite" powder, which, he tells me, has been taken out abroad; whether any agreement has been made as to who is to receive those profits, or whether Sir Frederick Abel himself is to be allowed to take those profits?
  MR. BRODRICK: In reply to my hon. Friend, I am not aware of any such arrangement as he suggests. As regards Great Britain the patent is in the hands of the Secretary of State, and I assume that the vendor would be in the same position abroad as any other vendor.

  FRANCE AND ENGLAND IN WEST AFRICA.
  MR. BAUMANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state in what month of 1885 Sahmadoo's messenger made the statement to Major Festing, asking, on his master's behalf, that the Queen should take his territories under Her protection; whether Major Festing, in his private Report, alluded to this offer; and when this Report was received in London?
  THE UNDER SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The statement was made to Major Testing on 25th August, 1885, at Freetown. I do not know to what Report my hon. Friend refers in the second paragraph of his question; but, as I stated yesterday in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Abercromby Division, the statement was not reported to Her Majesty's Government by Sir S. Rowe until June, 1886.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in any official Papers accessible to the public, there is any account of the late Major Festing's journey or journeys to the interior of the Sierra Leone district; what are the dates of Major Festing's departure or conclusion of his Mission or Missions; and whether the time has arrived when his Report may be published; and, if not, whether the Foreign Office will permit of the publication of such parts of his itinerary as are of general interest?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The reply to the first paragraph of the question is in the negative. Major Festing left Freetown on his first Mission on 8th March, 1887, and arrived there on his return on 22nd April. On the second occasion he left Freetown on 18th January, 1888, and died at Sininkoro in the Sangara country on 17th August. There will be no objection to present to Parliament extracts from his Report on his first journey. Major Festing died before making a Report on his second journey.

  THE MURDER OF INSPECTOR MARTIN.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can give the names of the prisoners from Donegal who were sentenced at the Special Commission held at Maryborough in 1889, and the names of those now in prison or penal servitude; whether any arrangement was made between prisoners' counsel and the counsel for the Crown; and, if so, what was the nature of it; if he is aware that some of those Donegal peasants did not understand in the
  1236
  English language the nature of the charge to which they were invited to> plead guilty, or the likely consequences of such pleading; and whether, in view of the whole circumstances of the trial of those Donegal peasants at the Special Commission at Maryborough, Her Majesty's Government would terminate, after more than three years, the imprisonment of those men?
  MR. JACKSON: Fifteen persons-were sentenced at Maryborough in 1889, in connection with the trial arising out of the murder of District-Inspector Martin, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, County Donegal. Of the accused, eleven were sentenced to terms, of imprisonment ranging from two to six calendar months, which sentences, have long since expired; and four are still in custody, as follows:—William Coll, ten years' penal servitude; Patrick Roarty, seven years' penal servitude; Dominick Rogers, seven years' penal servitude; Connell Magee, five years' penal servitude. The Government are not aware of any arrangement being made between the prisoners and the counsel for the Crown; nor are they aware whether any of the convicted persons were unable to speak English; but, as a matter of fact, an interpreter was employed in Court who interpreted the evidence of the witnesses. The cases of these convicts have been recently under the consideration of the Lord Lieutenant, who sees no reason to interfere with the due course of the law.
  MR. BLANE: Am I to understand that counsel made no arrangement with the counsel for the Crown similar to that which is made every day at the Old Bailey and Sessions in England?
  MR. JACKSON: The Government have no information on that subject.
  MR. MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say was-not William Coll, a Catholic peasant, not being able to speak a word of English, brought from Donegal to Maryborough, when he was tried by a special jury constituted from a panel of 117, of which 44 were asked to stand aside by the Crown, and is he aware that these 44 were all Catholics, and was not this Catholic peasant Coll tried by an exclusively Protestant jury?
  MR. JACKSON: I have no knowledge on these points.
  MR. MACNEILL: I have actual knowledge.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Is it not a fact that an arrangement was made by the then Attorney General and now Lord Chief Justice? What was the nature of this arrangement under which the liberties of these men were bargained away? Yes, unquestionably bargained away. Every honest man in Donegal believes it at this day. If the right hon. Gentleman will not give me an answer now I must press this in discussion on the Estimates.
  MR. JACKSON: I have given all the information I have on the subject.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: From the Lord Chief Justice?
  MR. MACNEILL: With a view to the consideration of all the circumstances, may I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that before the Court of Appeal it was decided by the vote of one Judge that evidence brought against William Coll was not illegal?
  MR. JACKSON: I understand that the Court of Appeal decided against the prisoner, and if that is so I cannot go behind that decision.

  NATIONAL GALLERY REPORT.
  MR. JAMES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury why the Report of the Directors of the National Gallery for 1891 has not been presented; and how soon it will be laid upon the Table?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. GOBST,): This Report was laid on the Table on 21st of last month and is now being printed.

  RIFLE RANGES.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will consider whether a suitable rifle range could be found on Salisbury Plain, where the land is exceedingly cheap and sparsely populated, instead of taking the proposed 800 acres for that purpose in the New Forest?
  MR. BRODRICK: Sites on Salisbury Plain have been examined, but pending the result of the inquiry into
  1238
  the proposed New Forest range, which will be resumed next week, we are not in a position to enter into the discussion of other sites.

  THE CONVICT EGAN.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet re-considered the circumstances of the conviction of Mr. Egan, now confined in Portland Prison; and whether he has decided to order his release?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: I have re-considered this case. The time has not yet arrived when it would be possible to advise any mitigation of the sentence.

  SECONDARY EDUCATION GRANT, SCOTLAND.
  MR. C. S. PARKER: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if before the Easter Recess he will lay upon the Table a Memorandum setting forth in general terms the principles on which it is proposed to distribute the grant for secondary education in Scotland; whether in reducing the average fee of £3 it will be permissible to include children under 13; and whether it is expected that most of the schools now examined as secondary schools could afford so to reduce their fees as a necessary condition for receiving any share of the grant?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I will to-day lay on the Table a Memorandum setting forth in general terms the principles on which it is proposed to distribute any grant which may be allowed for secondary education in Scotland. This will be placed in the printer's hands at once for distribution on the earliest day possible. In these circumstances, it is perhaps better that I should refrain from any further statement at present as to the proposals.

  SMALL ARMS FACTORY, ENFIELD.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state what amount was paid in wages at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, day work and piece

  1239
  work respectively, on the last pay day in March and first pay day in April, 1891, and what amounts for the corresponding periods this year, and the number of men engaged piece and day work on these dates respectively?
  MR. BRODRICK: On the last payday in March, 1891, the number of men engaged on day work at the factory was 1,029, and the amount paid in wages was £2,566; the number of men engaged on piece work for the same date was 1,765, and the amount paid in wages £2,779. On the first pay day in April, 1891, the number of men engaged on day work was 1,023, and the amount paid in wages £1,068; on piece work for the same date the number of men engaged was 1,759, and the wages paid amounted to £1,000. On the last pay day in March, 1892, the number of men engaged on day work was 990, and the amount paid in wages £1,916; on piece work, number of men engaged 1,268, and amount paid in wages £2,139. On the first pay day in April, 1892, the number of men engaged on day work was 988, and amount of wages paid £1,324; on piece work, number of men engaged 1,157, and amount paid in wages £1,598. Some disturbance was caused in the figures for 1891 by the Easter holidays.

  EXCISE OFFICERS.
  SIE T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply has been made to the petition of the Excise officers sent in May last to the Board of Inland Revenue for transmission to the Treasury?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: The Treasury in 1890 improved the Excise service at a large cost to the public. They did not, however, think it right to grant the request of the Excise officers that classification should be abolished, not so much on financial grounds, as because they are convinced of the great importance of classification for the proper discipline and regulation of this and other great branches of the Service, and for the due carrying out of the system of promotion by merit—which has always been pursued by the Board of Inland Revenue. The Memo-
  1240
  rial to which the hon. Member refers, repeats this request for the abolition of classification, and, after considering the matter further with the Board of Inland Revenue, the Treasury is unable to modify the previous decision.

  TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH JAMAICA.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, before agreeing to grant an annual subsidy to the Halifax and Bermuda Cable Company for laying a cable to Jamaica, this House will be given an opportunity to express its views on this matter? I may mention that I ask this question of the right hon. Gentleman at the desire expressed by the Under Secretary for the Colonies.
  SIR J. GORST: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. He is not aware of any proposal having been made to the Treasury for any such subsidy.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, Sir, I am sent from "pillar to post." The Under Secretary to the Colonies told me yesterday he was aware of such a proposal, and advised me to apply to the First Lord for information about it.
  SIR J. GORST: No such proposal has reached the Treasury.
  DR. CAMERON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, can such a subsidy be given without a contract being laid on the Table for the assent of the House?
  SIR J. GORST: I do not like to answer a legal question, but I should say it could not without the contract being laid on the Table, as all such contracts are.

  THE MANORHAMILTON GUARDIANS ELECTION.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board for Ireland has been called to the decisions given by the Returning Officer of the Manorhamilton Union at two of the recent Poor Law elections in that Union; whether he is aware that the Returning Officer recorded votes in favour of the Nationalist

  1241
  candidates on informal statements of claim; whether he is aware that the Returning Officer omitted to issue voting papers to voters entitled to same, and, in the absence of the police, employed an inexperienced person to distribute and collect voting papers in the town of Manorhamilton, in consequence whereof voting papers were in some cases mislaid; and that the Returning Officer permitted certain persons interested in the elections to have access to the proxy papers, statements of claim, and other documents of a private nature lodged by various persons, without their first having obtained permission of the Board of Guardians in the usual way; and whether the Irish Local Government Board will, under the circumstances, declare the said elections void, and will, in the event of new elections being held, appoint an experienced Returning Officer?
  MR. SEXTON: In connection with this question, before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I would ask him is it a fact that, after the elections were over, one of the defeated Conservative candidates moved, and his solicitor seconded, a vote of thanks to the Returning Officer for his conduct in this election, commending him in particular for his ability and impartiality in conducting the election?
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member will see that it is quite impossible for me to answer that question. As regards the question on the Paper, the Local Government Board have received communications containing the objections to the return of Guardians for the Manorhamilton Union. The Returning Officer states that he did not act in the manner indicated in the second paragraph of the question; that he omitted to issue voting papers in four cases, but the persons subsequently claimed them, and duly voted. The services of the police not being available the Returning Officer was employed in accordance with the general instructions laid down in such cases. No voting paper was mislaid, nor did he permit persons interested to act as alleged. The objections made to the Local Government Board are still under consideration.

  DESTITUTE IRISH POOR.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Guardians of Newtownards. Union, in which they protest against the law of Scotland which enables the Scottish authorities to return the destitute Irish poor to Ireland who have worked all their lives in Scotland, and whether he proposes to take any, and, if so what, steps in the matter?
  MR. JACKSON: A copy of the resolution referred to has been received by the Local Government Board. In regard to the general subject I fear I can add nothing to my reply to a similar question put to me on the 4th March last.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that this poor Irishman was deported from Scotland to the workhouse at Newtownards, where he has since died; and whether, after-spending a lifetime in Scotland, he was not at the time of his deportment in a dangerous state of health; and whether the Guardians did not concur that his death was caused by his removal; and whether steps will be taken to prevent a recurrence of this incident?
  MR. JACKSON: I am afraid that no steps can be taken which would prevent a recurrence. The man though he had lived in Scotland some years had not obtained a settlement, and, therefore, he could not be admitted into a Scotch workhouse.

  ENGINEERS IN THE NAVY.
  MR. PENN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, as reported in the Times newspaper of 6th April, it is true that the engine-room complements are being reduced at the rate of 30 per cent.; whether it is intended to deprive the whole of the cruisers of the Pallas class of the services of an assistant engineer; whether the artificers in the Bellona and Barham have been reduced from six to three, the difference being made good by chief stokers; whether in the Phœbe the number of engineer officers has been decreased from four to two,

  1243
  and the artificers from nine to seven; whether the number of artificers in the Royal Sovereign has been reduced from 18 to 12; and whether these reductions are made by reason of the dearth of officers and artificers?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The statement that engine-room complements have been generally reduced by 30 per cent. is wholly untrue. A recent investigation of the requirements of this branch of the Service has resulted in a net reduction over the whole Fleet of 4 per cent.; but this reduction has been generally confined to the older ships, there being an increase in the complements of the modern ships. The reduction proposed in certain grades are approximately as stated, it being the intention to substitute chief stokers for engine-room artificers where experience shows that the alteration can be beneficially effected. The general scheme of engine-room complements has not been thoroughly revised for some time. The present suggestions are entirely based on their own intrinsic merit and the most recent experience, and have been in no way influenced by the supposed deficiency or redundancy of any of the existing lists of officers, artificers, or stokers.

  THE IRISH MAILS.
  MR. T. J. HEALY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General why the Postal Authorities consider the morning mail train from Dublin to Wexford the less important, seeing that all the English letters are carried by that train; whether he is aware that the only other mail train from Dublin to Wexford takes nine hours to perform a journey of 92 miles; and whether he is prepared to advise any increase towards the acceleration of the mail train which carries the English mails?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The morning mail train from Dublin to Wexford conveys about half the volume of correspondence conveyed by the evening mail train, and for that reason was referred to as the less important of the two. It is true that the night mail is about nine hours on the road, there
  1244
  being a break in the journey, but the train reaches Wexford at the conveniently early hour of 5 a.m. It is feared that it would be useless to reopen negotiations for an acceleration of the day mail train.
  MR. T. J. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the paragraph which refers to the contribution?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I have answered that several times already, to the effect that unfortunately the service is carried on at a loss, and, therefore, I cannot ask the Treasury to make any contribution.

  POLICE DUTY IN IRELAND.
  MR. T. J. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at the fair held in the town of Gorey on the 2nd instant, ten policemen in plain clothes were guarding the planters who have taken the evicted farms in Coolgreany; why the police were guarding these men; and what was the cost of the extra police required for this duty?
  MR. JACKSON: The Constabulary authorities report that it is the case that policemen in plain clothes were on duty at the fair mentioned, but it is not the case that they were watching the tenant farmers referred to. There was no extra cost involved by the duty beyond the subsistence allowance and travelling expenses, amounting in all to the sum of £1 16s.
  MR. T. J. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what was the necessity for guarding these men?
  MR. JACKSON: No, Sir, I cannot say that.
  MR. T. J. HEALY: Are we to understand that these men were boycotted?
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member must understand nothing but what I have said.

  OUTRAGES ON WOMEN IN TRAINS.
  MR. ERNEST SPENCER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the attempted outrages upon women whilst travelling by railway, he will take steps to compel Railway Companies to provide all classes of trains with compartments exclusively for the use of women, and also a method of communi-

  1245
  cation with the guard in all local and stopping trains as well as expresses?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not think I can usefully add anything to the reply I gave to a question put to me on this subject on the 4th of last month by the hon. Member for West Waterford. I then stated that I was not aware of any general deficiency in the accommodation for women travelling alone, and that none such was disclosed in the correspondence presented to Parliament in 1888. It often happens that women prefer not to travel in the carriages specially reserved for them. Efficient means of communication are now required by Statute to be provided in the case of all passenger trains which travel more than 20 miles without stopping, and, as at present advised, I am not prepared to propose an extension of the law.

  SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state to the House what arrangements the Government intend to make to meet the urgent necessities of science teachers at South Kensington; and whether he will appoint an Inter-Departmental Committee, including the Professors of Science at South Kensington, to consider the plans of the future buildings and the best means of utilising the available space?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The first part of the question of the hon. Gentleman should be addressed either to my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works or to my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Education Department. With regard to the second, it is a matter upon which I am not able to give an answer, as I should have to consult upon the matter with the President of the Council; but I may say at once that I should not be satisfied that the Professors of Science alone should form a committee to consider the plans of the future building and the best means of utilising the available space.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: May I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the word "including" in the question?
  MR. GOSCHEN: It is quite right that the professors should be consulted, and I hope we shall be able to satisfy the wishes of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. BARTLEY: Has anything been done yet with a view of securing tenders?
  MR. GOSCHEN: My hon. Friend should address his question to the First Commissioner of Works.
  DR. FARQUHARSONrising later, said: May I ask the Vice President of the Council if he can answer the last part of Question 11, namely, whether he will appoint an Inter-Departmental Committee, including the Professors of Science at South Kensington, to consider the plans of the future buildings and the best means of utilising the available space?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: Without notice I think I cannot answer the question.

  POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS IN THE BANDON DISTRICT.
  MR. MORROGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the day postal service between Bandon and Kilbrittain, and vice versâ, could be served by a runner, thereby giving the inhabitants of Kilbrittain as much time as they have under present arrangements between arrival and departure of the day mail; and, if so, will he waive the objection (set forth in his letter of 11th March, 1892) to altering the postal arrangements as requested by the inhabitants of Timoleague and Courtmacsherry? The hon. Gentleman also asked if the right hon. Gentleman has received a Petition from the inhabitants of Courtmacsherry, County Cork, asking that the day mails at present sent by car from Bandon to Courtmacsherry, and vice versâ, should be sent by the Timoleague and Courtmacsherry Railway; is he aware that such change would greatly facilitate the business of traders and inhabitants of the district, by giving them extra time to answer letters between the arrival and departure of the mails; and have the Railway Company offered to carry the day mails at a price much lower than is at present paid for the service? The hon.

  1247
  Gentleman further asked the right hon. Gentleman if he has read a copy of resolutions passed at a meeting of the traders and inhabitants of Timoleague, County Cork, asking for improvement in the postal service between Bandon, Timoleague, and Courtmacsherry, and vice versâ, requesting that the day mails should be sent by rail instead of road, as at present; is he aware that large weekly markets, and important monthly fairs, are held in the town; and in view of these facts, and the general requirements of the district, will he grant the increased postal facilities asked for?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The matters mentioned in the three questions put down by the hon. Member are now being further considered, and, as soon as a final decision can be come to, the hon. Member shall be informed of it.

  KINSALE TOWN AND PIER.
  MR. MORROGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Works are yet in a position to furnish the Kinsale Town and Harbour Authorities with full details of the expenditure on the Kinsale Pier and works; whether the Board will state why the contractor, who originally contracted to perform the work, was released from the contract; and what amount, if any, has been charged against the Town and Harbour Commissioners owing to the non-performance of the first contract?
  SIR J. GORST: As I stated on the 25th February, I am informed that the Board of Works have not refused any information to the Local Authorities. No loss was caused by the first contractor's failure to carry out his contract, except to himself.
  MR. MORROGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the refusal of the Board to grant the Provisional Order sought by the Kinsale Town and Harbour Commissioners will result in compelling the Commissioners to strike an increased rate of 2s. in the £1 for many years to come; and is he aware that many of the principal ob-
  1248
  jectors to the Order have now abandoned their opposition to it; and, if so, will he undertake to re-consider the matter?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: As I have already stated, in reply to the hon. Member for North Cork, I am fully aware of the circumstances in which the application for the Kinsale Provisional Order was made. No intimation has been made to the Board of Trade by any objector to the Order that his opposition has been withdrawn. I have directed a public local inquiry to be held at Kinsale by one of my officers on the 21st instant, when the objectors, and all those interested in the proposed increase of harbour dues, will have an opportunity of expressing, their views.

  SENIORITY IN THE CUSTOMS.
  MR. CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a Memorial, addressed to the Lords of the Treasury and bearing on a question of seniority, and which was forwarded on 9th March last to the Board of Customs for transmission to their Lordships, by certain second-class examining officers who had been formerly second-class outport clerks, had been received by their Lordships?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am informed by the Board of Customs that they are-unable to support the Memorial in question, and that, therefore, they have not forwarded it to the Treasury.

  SCOTLAND AND THE LABOUR COMMISSION.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a Special Commissioner has yet been appointed by the Labour Commission to inquire into the condition of farm servants in Scotland; and will the said Commissioner hold sittings at the different agricultural centres and at other suitable places throughout the rural districts in Scotland?
  SIR J. GORST: No such Commissioner for Scotland has yet been appointed by the Labour Commission.

  SENTENCE ON A POACHER.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, with reference to the case of the son of a crofter, who, on 29th March, pleaded guilty to a charge of night poaching before the Sheriff Substitute at Nairn, is he aware that the accused's father is 72 years of age, and very frail, and that his son now in prison is, in point of fact, his sole support, and that the whole district had been covered with snow, accompanied by a severe frost, for more than two months when the offence was committed; also, that the previous charge made against the accused of poaching took place about 20 years ago; is he aware that when the accused was first charged with the present offence at Nairn on 26th March, he pleaded not guilty, that he was then sent to Inverness Prison for three days, and that he pleaded guilty when again brought up at Nairn on the 29th, in consequence of messages received through his brother from the Procurator Fiscal, stating that, if he did not do so, an additional charge—namely, of assault, would be preferred against him, whereby his punishment would be increased; is he aware that the Judge stated from the Bench that the law gave him no option to pass any sentence on the accused other than imprisonment, and to find caution; and whether he will make further inquiry, and, if the above statements are substantiated, take any steps which may be open to him for a revision of the sentence?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: It does not rest with me to revise the sentence; but if the hon. Member will be good enough to communicate to me the information in his possession and the source of it, I will gladly consider whether it is a case for further inquiry.

  BOARD SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION AT TOTTENHAM.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the School Board for Tottenham has been authorised by the Department to reckon its school accommodation at eight square feet instead of ten per child in average attendance; whether he is aware that in Noel Park School
  1250
  under that Board the girl's department with places for 400 at ten square feet, or 500 at eight square feet, has had recently 667 on the register, with an average attendance of 556 during one week, a highest attendance of 580, and an average for the whole of last quarter of 511; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances, and discourage such overcrowding?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: The hon. Member is probably aware that the question of the school accommodation has for some time been urgent at Tottenham, and that the Department recently took the extreme step of declaring the School Board in default. The present Board is working energetically to repair the neglect of its predecessor, and it is only pending the supply of the deficiency in the neighbourhood of the Noel Park School that the Department has, under the power given by Article 85 of the Code, temporarily sanctioned the accommodation in the girls' school being calculated at eight instead of ten square feet. I am not aware that the school has been crowded to the extent which the hon. Member believes, but the grant will be endangered if the average attendance for the year is allowed to exceed 500.
  MR. PICTON: For how long has the rule been suspended?
  SIR. W. HART DYKE: I cannot say without inquiry the exact time, but some months at all events.
  MR. PICTON: Is accommodation being provided now?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: Yes; we are getting on as quickly as possible.

  THE MOVEMENTS OF TROOPS.
  MR. THEOBALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in one of the daily papers that the 2nd Battalion Essex Regiment, the 56th Pompadours, have, since the year 1800, been at home only 15 years; and, if so, whether arrangements could now be made for them to return to England this year (after ten years' service in the Mediterranean) instead of being sent on to either India or Singapore as at present contemplated?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): The statement referred to is not correct. The 2nd Battalion of the Essex Regiment has been at home for 26 years in the present century. There are 31 battalions now abroad, which went on foreign service before the 2nd Battalion Essex Regiment; and, having in view the necessity of relieving battalions by their sister battalions, it would disturb the roster too much to bring it home so long before its turn.

  THE INDIAN COUNCILS BILL.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can engage that the Indian Councils Bill will not be taken before the 28th instant, in order that Members interested in it may be able to be present?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): No; I am afraid I cannot enter into any engagement of the kind referred to in the question of the hon. Member, because I hope to be able to take the Indian Councils Bill on Monday week, that measure not being, in my opinion, a contentious one.

  THE CONVICTION OF ANARCHISTS AT STAFFORD ASSIZES.
  MR. DARLINGhad the following Question on the Paper:—To ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been called to attacks upon Mr. Justice Hawkins and others whose duty necessitated their taking part in the conviction and punishment of certain persons tried at the last Assizes at Stafford for being in possession of bombs and other explosives intended to be used for criminal purposes; if he has considered whether the attacks made in a newspaper called Commonweal constitute a criminal offence; and whether it is the intention of the Government to prosecute the publishers and printers of such attacks as incite to the murder of those who are engaged in the administration of justice, in view of the attempts by Anarchists to murder Judges in France? The hon. Member said:—I have a Question upon the
  1252
  Paper addressed to the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General, but I do not see the Attorney General present. Perhaps I might ask either the First Lord of the Treasury or the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the attacks made by an Anarchist newspaper upon those who are called upon to administer justice in regard to the Anarchists in this country, and whether these attacks will be permitted to go unpunished, or whether the law of the land will be put in force against those who make them?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General is not in his place, and I am sorry to say I cannot answer the question.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury in what order he proposes to take the business on the Paper to-day in relation to the Motion for Adjournment for the holidays?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government have no choice but to take business in the order in which it stands on the Paper. The Motion for the Adjournment will be made after the Government Orders have been disposed of. The Orders as they appear on the Paper cannot be departed from.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman did not understand my question. I wished to know at what hour he intends to make the Motion for the Adjournment over the holidays?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I think we ought to be able to make the Motion for Adjournment about half-past five o'clock.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask the Government if they are serious in putting down for the Committee stage to-day a Bill containing over 500 clauses—the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill? Do they intend us to deal with a Bill of this enormous magnitude before the Motion for the Adjournment is made? The usual practice is for the Government to make the Motion for the Adjournment at the commencement of

  1253
  Public Business, and I may say that I have given notice that it is my intention, on the Motion being made, to call attention to the conduct of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in connection with the canditature of an Irish Conservative.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have directly followed precedent in this matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman should know that the invariable practice has been not to put down the Motion for Adjournment over the holidays first, but to take some business before it. The particular Scotch Bill which has been referred to only passed the Second Reading yesterday, and if any desire is expressed by the Scotch Members for longer time to consider it that desire will certainly be acceded to by the Government, and we should not think of pressing the Bill. The Bill is a very long one, but hon. Members on both sides are agreed upon many of its conditions and we hoped it might pass to-day. There will, however, be no attempt to force the House to discuss a measure of this character. With regard to the other measures they, ought not to take up much time; and as to the speech of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, I think an hour and a half ought to be enough for its discussion. Beside this, the House will only take non-contentious business.
  MR. MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman re-consider his decision about the Indian Councils Bill? There are Amendments to it of very considerable importance, and if he presses it on Monday he will not facilitate business.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: What business is to be taken on the first Monday after the Recess?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My intention is to take a number of non-contentious Bills on Monday. The Burgh Police (Scotland) Bill is to be put down first, and probably the Indian Councils Bill. I entirely sympathise with the point of view of some hon. Members with respect to this measure; but something must be put down for the first day that we meet, whether it be Supply or a Bill, and as it requires some discussion it may perhaps be inconvenient to have it put down for that day. Neither theory nor practice seems in favour of putting
  1254
  down Supply, and I have endeavoured to put down non-contentious business.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I understand, then that effective Supply will not be put down for Monday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not as the first or second Order.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: Has it not been the practice of the House not to take Scotch business the first day after the Recess, especially if that day is a Monday? If a Scotch Bill is put down for Monday, the Scotch Members will have to travel on Sunday, because many of us have to come over 500 miles.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I agree that it would be more convenient if possible to take wholly non-contentious business than such Scotch Business as the hon. Gentleman refers to; but, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, this is an important Bill, which Scotch Members are very anxious to pass, and which is not a Bill that requires great discussion, and which might be squeezed out altogether if I did not take every opportunity of pushing it forward. In the interests of the Scotch Members themselves, and of the constituencies which they represent, I would therefore ask them, if possible, to deal with this Bill on the first Monday on which we sit after the Recess. The hon. Gentleman will see that this course is proposed to be taken not so much in the interest of the Government as in the interest of the Scotch Members themselves.

  IRISH BUSINESS.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can give us some idea of the course of Irish Business in the first week after the Recess. I do not ask about the Irish Local Government Bill because it now possesses only a historic interest. But I should like to know whether the Irish Education Bill is likely to be proceeded with, and the Second Reading taken in the first week after the Recess; and any Irish Supply?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think we propose that any Irish Business should be taken that week, unless, perhaps, with the possible exception of the Bill in Committee on the financial relations between the two countries.

  1255
  The first Order of the Day on Thursday will be the discussion on the Budget in Committee. But with that exception we shall neither take Irish Estimates nor Debates on Irish Bills.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I should also like to make an appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury with regard to the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, and would ask him not to take that Bill in the first week after the Recess.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to the appeal of the hon. Gentleman I wish to say I am ready to give way to it. I hope after the time that will elapse he will not require long notice to be given of the day on which it is to be taken.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

  THE BUDGET STATEMENT.
  SIR W. B. BARTTELOT: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would have the additional figures, which he gave the House last night, inserted in the statement which the right hon. Gentleman had got printed and placed in the hands of hon. Members last night? There are two columns in that statement not filled up.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Certainly, I will take care that that shall be done.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Resolution [11th April] reported.
  "That, instead of the Duty on Wine imposed by 'The Customs (Wine Duty) Act, 1888," there shall be charged and paid the Duty following (that is to say):—
  Sparkling Wine imported in bottle the gallon two shillings.
  This Duty is to be paid in addition to the Duty in respect of alcoholic strength payable under 'The Customs Amendment Act, 1886," and without reduction."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  DR. CLARK: On that point I should like to ask for some further information from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am in favour of ad valorem duties, and I think there
  1256
  should be some proportion between the cost of articles and the duties paid by them. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to ad valorem duties. In the case of the best champagne, for instance, and the best cigars, the duties should be proportionately higher than on the less expensive descriptions. I think the dearer wines and alcohol should pay a greater duty in proportion to the cost, and that this differential duty should entirely disappear.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The hon. Gentleman suggests that I am opposed to ad valorem duties. I am not so entirely opposed to the principle of ad valorem duties; but in practice I regret very much my experience shows a difficulty in carrying it out in these particular cases. With regard to wines, the difficulty is in ascertaining the exact value. Some persons say wine ought to be valued at the selling price. What is the selling price of wine? It is extremely difficult on the one hand to ascertain what the price is between the importer and the exporter; and, on the other hand, it is extremely difficult to ascertain the true market value. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the cheaper champagne is chiefly consumed by the middle classes, but I am inclined to think that the cheap wine is to a large extent ultimately sold as a very dear wine. The hon. Gentleman is not right in saying that I am opposed to ad valorem duties; but it has been a source of anxiety to me for a considerable time how to devise the means of charging dear wine a higher duty than the cheaper sort, and so to make the change which he asks me now to make.
  MR. CRAIG: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has not found that he has committed what I may call an international blunder in setting up a differential duty which operates chiefly against the French producer. I cannot understand why this champagne should have a higher duty imposed upon it than the Johannisbergs, and the more expensive clarets and burgundies which come into this country. Champagne

  1257
  originally paid half-a-crown, but now, by the operation of the system which the right hon. Gentleman introduced, good champagne pays 5s. and inferior champagne pays 3s. 6d. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot see his way to retrace his foot-steps and go back to the principles of his youth, and adopt Free Trade pure and simple?
  MR. GOSCHEN: It is only by the courtesy of the House that I am allowed to answer the hon. Gentleman. I cannot for one moment admit that I made a huge mistake in imposing the duty on champagne. It must be remembered that it was imposed upon a foreign article which is distinctly one of luxury. Four years ago the House declined to allow me to charge higher duties on the sale of Rhine wines and clarets as well. The House thought fit to differ from me on that point; and we may conceive what would have been the result of that higher duty on all these wines from the fact that this duty on champagne has for the last four years running produced £150,000 a year.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Courtney, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir J. Gorst.

ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS] —(No. 232.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to move
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that it have power to further amend section fifty-eight of 'The Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878,' by enabling county road boards, under certain conditions, to construct and maintain roads and bridges for the benefit of their county within the territory of a neighbouring county, provided the consent of the County Council of the latter county be first obtained."
  In explanation of this Instruction I may state that, with regard to the more remote portion of the counties in Scotland, it often occurs that a county or part of a county requires an outlet, say to a railway station, and in order to get that outlet it has to traverse a portion of the territory of the neighbouring
  1258
  county. As the law now stands there is no power for the county requiring the outlet to construct and maintain a road or bridge in the territory of the neighbouring county. I think it will be granted that such a power is desirable, and I therefore move this Instruction without further comment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that it have power to further amend Section 58 of 'The Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878,' by enabling County Road Boards, under certain conditions, to construct and maintain roads and bridges for the benefit of their county within the territory of a neighbouring county, provided the consent of the County Council of the latter county be first obtained."—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): In assenting to this Instruction as a reasonable one, I only desire to say that I do so in the belief that it will not in any way delay the Bill, which is one of considerable urgency.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  MR. HOZIER: I understand that this clause is to enable the County Council to approve of a resolution to re-build any bridge that may be destroyed or seriously injured by flood, fire, or other sudden calamity, at any meeting called for the purpose. Would not the right hon. Gentleman make some change with regard to the meetings at which the Resolutions are to be approved?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I could not assent to the hon. Member's suggestion. The October meeting is the one at which the Road Trustees transact their important business, and it was thought right in 1889 that that meeting should be retained as one for the ordinary business of the county; and this Bill, while accepting that situation, introduces a special meeting by special notice only for the purposes set forth in Clause 1—that is to say, for the purpose of dealing with the cases of bridges which have been destroyed by flood, fire, or other sudden calamity. I could not now

  1259
  assent to make a change generally, because I think there is a great deal to be said against allowing the repair or the re-building of bridges, which has for a long time been in contemplation, to be the subject of special meetings. These matters might well be relegated to the October meeting.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  New Clause—
  "Notwithstanding the terms of Sub-section 16 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, any assessment leviable under Section 58 of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878, for the re-building of bridges destroyed or injured as in the preceding sections mentioned may be imposed and levied as the County Council may determine, either on the county (subject to the provisions as to the insular districts contained in the said section) or on the district or districts within which such bridge is situate, partly on the county and partly on such district or districts, and such assessments shall be paid one-half by the proprietor and the other half by the tenant or occupier of the land and heritages on which the same shall be imposed, provided that nothing in the Local Government (Scotland) Act or this Act shall prejudice the power of borrowing for the purpose of such re-building conferred by Section 58 of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878, and any assessment in respect of such borrowing may be imposed and shall be payable as under the section before mentioned,"—(The Lord Advocate,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. CRAWFORD: I wish to ask the Lord Advocate whether the effect of the clause will be to make any difference in the incidence of rating between owners and occupiers?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: No, Sir. I am not aware that the clause will have any such effect. It will give the County Council power to lay the cost of rebuilding the bridge upon the district within which it is situated, and to confer upon them the power to lay the cost partly on the county and partly on the district.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  New Clause—
  "Where the Road Board of a county shall, with the approval of the County Council, enter into an agreement with the County Council or
  1260
  Road Board of an adjoining county for the construction of any new road or bridge, under Section 58 of 'The Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878,' and the portion of the new road or bridge situate in the latter county shall be made and maintained for the benefit of the former county, it shall be competent to impose and levy the assessment for defraying the expense of the construction and maintenance of the portion of the new road or bridge situate in the latter county upon and from the persons liable to be assessed for the construction and maintenance of new roads or bridges in the former county, in the same manner and with the same powers of recovery as if the whole of the new road or bridge had been situate in the former county,"—(Mr. Marjori-banks,)
  —brought up, read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday, 25th April, and to be printed. [Bill 291.]

BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 230.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  DR. CLARK; This Bill was read a second time last night after twelve o'clock, and we had not time to then discuss it. Indeed, I did not know that it had been read a second time until I saw the report this morning in the papers. We ought to have a separate Public Health Bill for the whole of Scotland, for the counties as well as the burghs, as is the case in England. I shall now move to report Progress, in order to call attention to this matter. The Bill requires to be greatly altered, but we have not yet had time to put Amendments down upon the Paper. Altogether the Bill contains 560 clauses, and it can only be passed by striking out the whole of the Public Health Clauses. It entirely transforms our Burgh Law, our Police Law, and our Public Health Law. Under the circumstances, I think it is only reasonable that an opportunity should be given us of putting Amendments upon the Paper.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Clark.)
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I hope the Motion for Adjournment will not be persevered with strongly. Three years ago a Committee was appointed to deal with this Bill, and they sat for three months. It is true that some changes were then made in it of an important character relating to rating, but they all came within small dimensions, and they might be discussed in a very short time. I deprecate very strongly the idea that has been suggested that the Public Health Clauses should be taken out of the Bill. The fact is that the Public Health Clauses are the most important clauses in the Bill, and it would be hardly fair to those who represent Scotland to take them out of it. I hope my hon. Friend will allow the non-contentious clauses to go through Committee, and to leave over those upon which there should be some discussion till Monday week. Opportunity would then be afforded to the hon. Member of putting down such Amendments as may be considered necessary.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I hope the Motion for Progress will not be persevered with. It is perfectly true that upon all the clauses there is not general agreement; but what I would impress upon my hon. Friends is this—to take a broad and a friendly view of the measure, and to allow us to go through Committee as far as possible to-day. I may say that I had a conversation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, and that he is very anxious to see this Bill carried through. That being so, I am sure my hon. Friend will be willing to accede to the wish thus expressed, and will withdraw his Motion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand the objections of the hon. Member for Caithness to be confined to certain clauses, and I would suggest, without discussing the value of those objections, that we might be allowed to take the less contentious clauses to-day. On the part of the Government I would be glad to postpone any clause to which objection is taken.
  DR. CAMERON: It is perfectly impossible, when clauses are being read from the Chair, for hon. Members to formulate their objections. I have no objection to the Bill as a whole—certainly not to three-fourths
  1262
  or four-fifths of it; but there are in the Bill a number of things to which I have a very strong objection. For instance, in casually reading the Bill this morning, I came across one clause which completely alters the entire principle of the law relating to the abolition of imprisonment for debt in Scotland, and I am sure that this result was not intended by those who drew this Bill. I wish to point out the great inconvenience of the course adopted by the Government with regard to this Bill. I know that many hon. Members who might have an objection to the details of the Bill agreed to raise no objection to the Second Reading if the Government allowed a reasonable time to elapse before taking the Committee stage, so that they might look into the matter. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, I was prepared to move an Instruction to the Committee to the effect that the Committee have power to divide the Bill into two different portions. There was, however, no opportunity given so that I might put down such an Instruction. There is one body of men in Scotland who may be considered as pre-eminently entitled to be consulted in any matter connected with public health, and that is the Association of Medical Officers in Scotland. Those gentlemen have stated their objection to the question of the law relating to public health in Scotland being treated in the manner proposed in this Bill. They say that the Bill, if it is to be passed at all, should apply all round, and that the larger towns should not be excepted. They complain that, this Bill having only been printed a few days ago, they have had no opportunity of seeing its provisions. One of their objections to the Bill is that it proposes to alter the position of Officers of Public Health in Scotland as defined by the Local Government (Scotland) Act. If the Bill had been divided into two parts, the non-contentious matter might have been disposed of at once. But there is another inconvenience. It is proposed that the Bill should be put down for Monday week. Having regard to the Adjournment of the House until that day, it must inevitably happen that when the Bill is then brought forward a large number of Amendments will be handed in in MSS. I do not think

  1263
  that is a system of legislation which can commend itself to the House. Now, Sir, my hon. Friend below me intends to move to include Glasgow in the Bill. On that point, I will only say that while I could tolerate the Bill as long as it does not apply to the City which I have the honour to represent, I should certainly offer the strongest possible objection to Glasgow being placed under this Code without due notice.
  MR. R. T. REID: I want to say a word on behalf of the small burghs, who really do want this Bill. Glasgow is not affected by the Bill, or if it is affected it is in so minute a way as to be imperceptible. In the small burghs people, without distinction of Party, are deeply anxious that this Bill should be passed. It has been ten years before the House. It has been printed I do not know how many times at great public cost, and over and over again for no reasonable purpose it has been objected to. Two or three years ago we got through Committee, and further progress was stopped, not by any representative of a constituency affected by the Bill, but by the hon. Member for St. Rollox, who put down 15 pages of Amendments which made it impossible to pass the Bill. Now we have the hon. Gentleman who represents the College Division objecting to do on the same grounds.
  Dr. CAMERON: I did nothing of me sort.
  MR. R. T. REIDThat is the kind of objection by which this Bill is being met. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness no doubt represents a burgh that is affected. I am sure there is no desire to deprive him of an opportunity of moving his Amendments. But the First Lord, has made a reasonable offer; he says that if any clause is objected to, it will be postponed, and ample opportunity given for its discussion. Why, then, should we not proceed with the Bill? There may be objections on some points, but the substance of the Bill is most acceptable to the constituencies, and is earnestly wished for.
  MR. CALDWELL: The reason I objected some years ago was this: The Government was going to introduce a Local Government Bill which would transfer the
  1264
  administration of matters connected with public health to the County Councils. It was simply a matter of convenience. Now that the Local Government Act has passed, I may say that personally I have no objections to this Bill. At the same time, I would point out to the Government the extreme inconvenience of mixing up in one Bill questions connected, with the police and with public health. If there is to be an amendment of the Public Health Act it should be done by a separate Bill. To apply to burghs a rule different from that obtaining in counties will make the Public Health Act unworkable.
  DR. CLARK: I would have no objection to the proposal of the First Lord if I saw how it could be carried out. But I notice that in the 4th clause it is proposed to substitute the word "Commissioners" for "Town Councillors." We do not want that newfangled word, and if it is not left standing then the phraseology of all the later clauses will have to be altered. Again, it is proposed that certain burghs should be exempt. Greenock is to be exempted, but Leith and Paisley and Govan are taken in. We want a uniform Police Law.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: If, as has been said, there are few hon. Members present, it is because they do not desire to discuss in detail this Bill, and because they know that the Town Councils are anxious that the Bill should pass. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed. I can understand that it would be desirable to have some changes respecting the Public Health Act in counties. I do not see how it is likely we shall have a more favourable opportunity of passing the Bill than we shall have this afternoon. It will be a matter of the deepest regret and concern to all the small burghs in Scotland if anything is done to hinder the passing of this Bill. We are all of one mind on the subject, and it is very hard that the safety of this Bill should be endangered by the Representatives of constituencies which are hardly affected by it at all. There is nobody whatever against this Bill, and I earnestly hope our reputation for common sense will not be taken away by any senseless opposition to the Bill.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I would remind the hon. Member for Caithness, with reference to the postponement of Clause 4, the Definition Clause, that that was the very course adopted in the Committee, and why should we not postpone the Clause now? As representing five of the burghs in Scotland which will be affected by this Bill, I can speak as to the feeling which exists in favour of its passage into law, and I most sincerely hope the advice which has been tendered to this House through the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, who wishes to assist in the passage of this Bill, will be accepted by all sides of the House.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: With regard to the Definition Clause, I do not think there is any serious objection on the point as to whether those gentlemen should be called Town Councillors or Commissioners. What we are concerned about is the law under which they are going to administer the affairs of the burghs.
  DR. CLARK: I have no objection to go on as far as we can until we come to the contentious matter, but then as soon as we get there we may go on to subjects which are not dealt with in this clause.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  DR. CLARK: I move that the clause be postponed.
  Clause postponed.
  Clause 5.
  DR. CLARK: This clause raises a question of principle whether the Bill shall apply to the whole of the burghs of Scotland, or whether a number of burghs shall be exempted. I beg to move that this clause be postponed.
  Clause postponed.
  Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to move the Amendment which was moved previously—
  "After 'situated' insert 'Members of Parliament for burghs wholly or partly within the county and Councils or burghs within the county.'"
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to remember his attitude towards the Bill, and to consider whether it is desirable to take this Amendment now. I hope he will take another occasion for bringing it forward.
  MR. CALDWELL: If time be allowed for the purpose of making other Amendments I certainly, for my part, will not put down one single unnecessary Amendment. I have no intention of interposing any obstacle to the passing of the Bill, but I would appeal to the Government to give time for the consideration of Amendments.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I hope my hon. Friend in moving his Amendments will only press matters of principle.
  MR. R. T. REID: The hon. Member should put the saddle on the right horse.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 9 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 15.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to move that the clause be postponed.
  Clause postponed.
  Clauses 16 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 28 postponed.
  Clauses 29 to 35, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 36.
  DR. CLARK: This clause limits the number of Magistrates of burghs according to population. We think that two Magistrates are not sufficient for some of the burghs, and I move that the clause be postponed.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: The smallest burghs have 7,000 of a population. I should think two Magistrates would be sufficient for such burghs, and I have heard of no wish from any burgh whatever that the number of Magistrates should be increased.
  DR. CLARK: It is with reference to burghs between 10,000 and 15,000 that this matter is contentious. There was a division in the Committee on the matter, and a strong feeling about it.
  Clause postponed.
  Clauses 37 to 41, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 42.
  DR. CLARK: This clause affects one of the burghs which I represent, where we have two classes of Magistrates, Police Magistrates, and Burgh Magistrates. I think this clause wants amendment, as it does not meet the case entirely, and I move that the clause be postponed.
  Clause postponed.
  Clauses 43 to 45 agreed to.
  Clause 46 postponed.
  Clauses 47 to 59, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 60 postponed.
  Clauses 61 to 74, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clauses 75 to 77 postponed.
  Clause 78.
  MR. CRAWFORD: This clause deals with a population of not less than 25,000. I beg to move, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 8, after the word "thousand," to insert the words,
  "or at any time it is proved to the satisfaction of the Sheriff that they have a population of 20,000."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  DR. CLARK: If this had come on in the usual fashion the hon. Member's Amendment would have been on the Paper, and we would have known what it meant. I object to anything of this kind being done without notice, and I think the Amendment should be put on the Paper, so that we may know what we are doing.
  MR. PROVAND: I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment now.
  MR. BARCLAY: This Amendment is to alter the population of the burghs, and it will give rise to considerable discussion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause postponed.
  DR. CLARK: The Government have now got two portions of their Bill, and Parts 3 and 4 raise the questions of the Police Force and the Public Health Clauses, which I think require further
  1268
  time for consideration. To these clauses also there are a great number of Amendments. I, therefore, move that you do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  MR. R. T. REID: I hope the hon. Member will not press his Motion, but let us get on with the Bill, in which the burghs I represent are deeply interested.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I hope my hon.. Friend will not press the Motion.
  DR. CLARK: In these clauses there are several powers given which I do not think ought to be given. I think it would be a reasonable compromise to take up to Clause 99, the end of Part 3 of the Bill. Beyond that the clauses are bristling with pains and penalties, and we ought not to allow the Criminal Law to be altered in this way without full and free discussion. If the right hon. Gentleman will take up to Clause 98 that will give him the machinery, and leave the clauses beyond, which deal with the incidence of the taxes and lighting, and will then report Progress, I will withdraw.
  MR. R. T. REID: I hope my hon. Friend will not persist. How, in the name of common sense, are we to pass this Bill till the crack of doom if there are constant Motions to report Progress? The Bill is of great magnitude, and to apply the process of dealing with ordinary Bills would render its passage impossible. When I observe that those who are the subjects of the clauses imposing penalties are themselves anxious and pressing for them to be passed, and that the objection comes almost wholly from those who have select penal clauses of their own, it is impossible to reconcile their proceeding with a sincere desire to pass the Bill.
  DR. CAMERON: I think progress would be facilitated if my hon. and learned Friend would abstain from indulging in unnecssary lectures. He previously said that my object fn resisting the progress on the Bill was to enable me to put down 15 pages of Amendments. I never put down 15 pages of Amendments to a Bill in my life. I have been silent while 70 or

  1269
  80 clauses have been passed, waiting till I have some Amendment to propose—and surely that is a guarantee that I have no desire to place a mechanical obstacle in the way of the Bill. The First Lord of the Treasury feels the importance of these clauses as he intends to give an opportunity of discussing them, and I shall feel bound to offer some remarks on the clauses in Part 4.
  MR. ROBERTSON: I want to make a suggestion which may help matters. I propose that we shall proceed with the Bill avoiding all discussion to-day, postponing all contentious clauses.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is the offer I made to the Committee two hours ago.
  MR. CRAWFORD: I think my hon. and learned Friend had the opportunity of raising every one of these points before the Committee which sat for eight weeks in the summer, and he carried as many of his points as any individual of the House could expect to do. It is true that if my hon. and learned Friend persists in raising these points it will make legislation impossible. I think it a little unfair of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), whose constituents have insisted on being exempted from the Bill, to resist the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the Scotch Members in this House, and of the small burghs of Scotland to whom the passing of the Bill is very important.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If we carry out the principle that every clause to which objection is made be postponed we should get on better. I shall have to cut this discussion short, having regard to the other business of the House, but we have still a little time left for it.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I want to raise an objection to this Bill being scamped in this way. In the Bill many precedents will be set which it may be attempted to apply to Ireland, and we ought, therefore, to give more time to the consideration of them. It is an absolute piece of humbug and bunkum trying to rush this Bill through in an afternoon, to meet the exigencies of an already defunct Government.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: We might proceed to
  1270
  Clause 104, and then postpone the rest. I am glad to have heard this discussion, which shows that the voice of Scotland is not unanimous, as that is in favour of Scotch Home Rule.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw his Motion?
  DR. CLARK: There is Clause 83, the Coercion Clause, on which I feel very strongly. After our experience in Skye I shall have to oppose that clause. I withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause postponed.
  Clauses 79 to 82 agreed to.
  Clause 83 postponed.
  Clauses 84 to 86 agreed to.
  Clause 87 postponed.
  Clauses 88 to 99, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 100 postponed.
  Clauses 101 to 103 agreed to.
  Clause 104 postponed.
  Clauses 105 to 107 agreed to.
  Clauses 108 and 109 postponed.
  Clauses 110 to 113 agreed to.
  Clauses 114 to 117 postponed.
  Clause 118.
  DR. CLARK: This is another clause to which we object. It imposes a penalty of 40s. on occupiers for not performing certain duties which are now performed by the owners. I do not think we are making much progress, and I see no use in going on in this way.
  DR. CAMERON: I think the clauses up to 126 are of a most contentious character.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then we will postpone those clauses.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: There is a great deal in this Bill raising new powers, and if we go on as we are going it will be said you allowed those powers to be given to Scotland sub silentio, and then it will be proposed to apply them to Ireland. There are a number of excellent clauses in this Bill which we should be delighted to apply to Ireland, but we have no chance of getting them. But in voting clauses in this

  1271
  matter we are acting entirely in the dark, and if we vote anything that is bad for Scotland we shall have it applied to Ireland, and be told that we should not oppose it. I venture to make a protest against this system of passing legislation.
  Clauses 119 to 126, inclusive, postponed.
  Clauses 127 to 129, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 130 postponed.
  Clauses 131 and 132 agreed to.
  Clause 133 postponed.
  Clauses 134 and 135 agreed to.
  Clauses 136 to 141, inclusive, postponed.
  Clause 142 agreed to.
  Clause 143.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not see why Scotland should have powers which are refused to Ireland, and I propose to alter this clause most mischievously. I propose to introduce the same mischievous proposal as was included in a Government Bill with regard to Ireland. We are not allowed to alter the names of the streets in our towns, and if we are not allowed, why should Scotland be? I admit the Amendment is a mischievous one, but I put it forward to show the manner in which Ireland is treated. We are allowed to alter the numbers, so we will leave the same power to Scotland; but I move after the word "name," to take in from the Irish Bill the words "with the consent of the majority of the inhabitants."
  Amendment proposed, after the word "name," to insert the words "with the consent of the majority of the inhabitants."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. ESSLEMONT: This clause was brought forward at the particular request of the Scotch Members, and I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment. The Scotch Members will be very glad to help him to alter the Irish Bill if he will not spoil our measure.
  DR. TANNER: This Amendment will show Her Majesty's Government
  1272
  the necessity of dealing impartially with all portions of the United Kingdom. I hope the Scotch Members will assist us to make the Government swallow one of their impartial proposals.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I admitted that my Amendment was mischievous, and I think the clause had better be postponed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause postponed.
  Clauses 144 postponed.
  Clauses 145 to 148, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clauses 149 and 150 postponed.
  Clauses 151 to 179, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 180 postponed.
  Clause 181 agreed to.
  Clauses 182 and 183 postponed.
  Clauses 184 to 191, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 192 postponed.
  Clauses 193 to 199, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clauses 200 to 208, inclusive, postponed.
  Clauses 209 to 214, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clauses 215 and 216 postponed.
  Clause 217 agreed to.
  Clause 218 postponed.
  Clauses 219 to 221, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 222.
  DR. CLARK: According to this clause a person throwing a cork into the street is to be fined 20s.
  Clause postponed.
  Clauses 223 to 234, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 235.
  DR. CLARK: This clause provides for the construction of sewers; and as it may come under one of the charges in connection with the Committee I should like to have it postponed.
  Clause postponed.
  Clauses 236 and 237 agreed to.
  Clause 238.
  DR. CLARK: This clause means that new houses cannot be built unless they are drained, and it is impossible in some of the smaller burghs to do that.
  Clause postponed.
  Clause 239 agreed to.
  Clause 240.
  DR. TANNER: This clause deals with the ventilation of buildings, a subject forming the subject of inquiry in a Committee upstairs; and as it may be connected with the operation of the Public Health Act I hope the Committee will postpone the clause.
  Clause postponed.
  Clause 241 agreed to.
  Clause 242 postponed.
  Clauses 243 and 244 agreed to.
  Clause 245 postponed.
  Clause 246 agreed to.
  Clause 247.
  DR. CLARK: This is a very objectionable clause, which permits the sewage of other people to be put under the houses of their neighbours.
  Clause postponed.
  Clause 248 postponed.
  Clause 249.
  DR. TANNER: Here, again, "waste pipe in communication with drains." To run a waste pipe in communication with drains anywhere in the vicinity of an open window may be very serious. We have been considering these matters for weeks past in connection with a Committee upstairs; and that particular point was discussed during the whole of an afternoon; and accordingly, in connection with many of these sanitary clauses, I do not think you are doing well or wisely in scampering through this Bill with this undue and indecent haste.
  DR. CAMERON: All these clauses would be much better dealt with by giving powers to the Local Authorities to make bye-laws. The small details would be very much better dealt with by bye-laws than by
  1274
  clauses of an Act of Parliament; and I would suggest, therefore, before coming to any decision, that all these clauses up to 256 should be postponed.
  Clause postponed.
  Clauses 250 to 256, inclusive, postponed.
  Clauses 257 and 258 agreed to.
  Clause 259 postponed.
  Clauses 260 to 269, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 270.
  DR. CAMERON: This is a subject, again, which had better be dealt with by bye-law.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I wish to point out to my hon. Friend that the object of this Bill is to consolidate the law, so that there may not be one law for one burgh and another for another. My hon. Friend is more familiar with the City of Glasgow than with the smaller burghs, where the same law would not be applicable, as they can go to any expense in these matters in the City of Glasgow.
  DR. CAMERON: With all respect to my hon. Friend, whose views are entitled to great weight, I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman to take into consideration the propriety of dealing with a great number of these matters by bye-laws, and that these clauses should be postponed.
  Clause postponed.
  Clauses 271 to 276, inclusive, postponed.
  Clauses 277 to 281, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 282.
  DR. TANNER: This clause, which deals with the accumulation of penalties, appears to me to afford much room for discussion and ought to be postponed.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 283 to 285, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 286 postponed.
  Clauses 287 to 289, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 290 postponed.
  Clauses 291 to 315, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 316 postponed.
  Clauses 317 to 325, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 326 postponed.
  Clauses 327 to 329, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 330 postponed.
  Clauses 331 to 339, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 340.
  DR. CAMERON: Here we come to the public health portion of the Bill and the Sanitary Clauses, and I would suggest that we should now break off. I beg to move, Mr. Courtney, that you do report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Cameron.)
  MR. BARCLAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the discussion in Committee on the Bill will be resumed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Bill will be put down on the day the House is to resume after the Recess, with the view of making progress at all events with the remaining uncontested clauses. Under these circumstances I agree to the Motion moved by the hon. Member.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take it on the Monday, as it would much facilitate business.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The House could, after the Easter Recess, make progress at all events with the undisputed clauses.
  Committee to sit again upon Monday, 25th April.

  SHORT TITLES BILL [Lords].—(No. 227.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to strike out all the repealing clauses.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I may explain to the hon. and learned Member for Longford, I propose to strike out all the repealing clauses. The result will be to make the Bill simply permissive, enabling people to use the short title, and not preventing those who prefer to do so from employing the long title. As the hon. and learned Member is well aware, there are many Acts of Parliament which cannot be cited except by very long titles.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I am altogether opposed to the idea of altering the historic titles of certain Acts of Parliament. Take the Act of Union of Scotland. It is to be called Union of Scotland Act? Union of what? Then there is the Act for the Union of England and Scotland, and that of the union with Ireland—our little country over the way. I shall object to any tinkering with these historic titles.
  SIR C. RUSSELL: I would point out to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Longford that people will still be at liberty, notwithstanding this Act, to use the longest titles that exist.
  DR. TANNER: I think that the Government should be fair all round, and allow the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act to be cited by the simple, common, and true title of the Tory Coercion Act. It is as well to call a spade a spade while we are at it.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I can satisfy the scruples of the hon. Member. The words are without prejudice to any other mode of recital.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2 negatived.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Schedule 1 be added to the Bill."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The Government proposed at 5.30 to report Progress, and I really think it is not fair to go on.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: There are only three Schedules, and these we might be allowed to take.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I withdraw my opposition.
  Schedule 1 agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Schedule 2 be added to the Bill."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg now, Sir, to move that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. It is now more than half-past five o'clock, and, moreover, it is desirable that we should have this Bill in reserve.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Member admits that his object in making this Motion is to have a Bill in reserve that he may operate more successfully upon the Attorney General at a later stage. That is hardly a reason for not going on with this Bill. I said that 5.30 was a desirable hour to begin the discussion upon the Motion for Adjournment, but the hon. Member can hardly complain if the hour is a little overstepped. The Bill now before the Committee can be disposed of in a few minutes, as there is no contentious matter in the Schedules. I hope the Motion for Progress will not be persevered with.
  DR. TANNER: As one of the late guests of the right hon. Gentleman, I would like to put this matter in proper form. I wish to move an Amendment on the Schedules with reference to the Criminal Law Procedure (Ireland) Bill. That Bill is known as the Coercion Act, and sometimes it is spoken of as Balfour's Coercion Act, thereby reminding us of the immortal services of the right hon. Gentleman. I shall feel it necessary to divide the Committee on this point, as the right hon. Gentleman has impressed me with a sense of responsibility in respect of this matter.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to again upon Monday 25th April.

MOTION.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to move—
  "That this House, at the conclusion of the Morning Sitting this day, do adjourn until Monday the 25th April."

  PEERS AND ELECTIONS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: We are on the point of adjourning for Easter, and it is only fair to take a slight survey of what the Government have done since the Session began. At the beginning of the Session we were told that in conformity with the Unionist pledges a Local Government Bill on the lines of the measures already passed for England and Scotland would be introduced for Ireland; and that Bill, we were told, would be the consummation of Unionist policy, and would finally seal relations of amity between this country and Ireland. Sir, I ask with Hans Breitmann—where is the Local Government Bill now? We are all anxious that Government should go on with that Bill, but we know very well from authoritative statements that have appeared in the Unionist newspapers that the Government have themselves abandoned all hope of passing the measure into law. Thus it is that every pledge made by successive Governments with regard to Local Government in Ireland has been broken, and time after time they have shown themselves absolutely incapable of legislating on this important subject. In 1878 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet brought in a Bill, which was a better Bill than the measure now before the House. The present Bill is so bad that the Government are ashamed to present it to the House of Commons. It is a Bill which purports to abolish the powers of Grand Jurors in Ireland, and to hand them over to the people of Ireland. The Grand Jurors met last month, and from not one of the 32 counties did there come from those gentlemen, whom it is proposed to disestablish, one single word of protest against the great Local Government Bill of Her Majesty's Government. That is one of the most remarkable testimonies to the Tory character of the Bill. There is another subject I should like to touch upon—namely, the subject of education. So far as I can see, Irish education is as far from being perfected as ever. A very reasonable demand was made by competent and indeed high authorities that the Bill should be split into two parts—that the part which deals with intricate and

  1279
  somewhat difficult matters of procedure should be postponed, so that the part which gives relief to the teachers, which is non-contentious, should be passed, as passed it would be in a few hours. The Government object to that without forcing down the throats of the Irish Members a proposal for dealing with the Pension Fund that is absolutely obnoxious to the people of Ireland. These are the entire performances of the Government, and I like to check off the Act of Union year by year, in order to show the assets. We have an offensive and objectionable Local Government Bill which is brought forward only to be withdrawn, and an Education Bill which is objected to by the Irish Members—a Bill which the Government will not allow the Irish Members to mould in accordance with the wish of the Irish people. But, Sir, the immediate purpose of my intervention was to call attention to the action of the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Lord Ashbourne). Lord Ashbourne is at the head of the judicial administration in Ireland; he is a man who had great experience in this House; he has very important functions to discharge in Ireland. In the first place, he has to be satisfied of the legal knowledge of the Removable Magistrates—a subject so profound as almost to engage his exclusive attention. He has, practically, the appointment of all the Judges in the land; he advises the Lord Lieutenant and I believe a practice has sprung up—I believe it dates from the time of Lord Chancellor Sullivan's first appointment—of having an office in Dublin Castle called the Lord Chancellor's Office. Therefore, this Judge in the land takes practically a part in the executive as well as in the legal and judicial administration of the country. Moreover, Lord Ashbourne is a Cabinet Minister. So strongly does he feel that he is to some extent a suspect that he does not sit and adjudicate in certain matters coming before his Court—in revision appeals, for example, with respect to the registration of voters and other cognate matters; and although I do not think it is a very great loss, still there attaches to him the conviction that he is bound to walk warily in the discharge of his important
  1280
  duties. But in addition to being Lord Chancellor, Lord Ashbourne is a Peer of the Realm, and as you, Mr. Speaker, reminded us when the Cambrian Railway Directors were before us the other day there are certain Resolutions passed at the beginning of every Session which, if they leave out the force of law, are still real and absolute powers. One of these Resolutions which was mentioned by you, Mr. Speaker, when admonishing the Cambrian Directors from the Chair, is in these words:—
  "Resolved, That it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom for any Lord of Parliament, or other Peer or Prelate, not being a Peer of Ireland at the time elected, and not having declined to serve for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, to concern himself in the election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, except only any Peer of Ireland at such elections in Great Britain respectively where such Peer shall appear as a candidate, or by himself, or any other, be proposed to be elected; or for any Lord Lieutenant or Governor of any county to avail himself of any authority derived from his commission, to influence the election of any Member to serve for the Commons in Parliament."
  Lord Ashbourne was as well aware of that Resolution as any other Peer. But I do not wish to press the point too strongly against Lord Ashbourne because the Resolution has not the force of law, and because the Duke of Westminster, the Duke of Norfolk, and other persons higher in the scale, are in the habit of intermeddling in politics, and it would not be fair to reprimand Lord Ashbourne who is only a Baron for doing what Dukes do habitually. My real complaint is that Lord Ashbourne who is a Judge of the land has interfered practically in a hustings matter. The right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the House, says that has yet to be proved. Well, Sir, I acknowledge that my authority is rather slight—it is only a paragraph in the Times. I am well aware from certain judicial proceedings that any statement the Times makes with regard to a Member of Parliament or a Peer belonging to a certain political Party ought to be taken with a certain amount of reserve. But in this instance the statement in the Times may, I think, be taken as accurate because it was not telegraphed, and might have been supplied by the noble Lord himself. Lord Ashbourne would have done better

  1281
  by attending to his important judicial duties in Ireland instead of traipseing over to Portsmouth to look after the candidature of Mr. Evelyn Ashley, who is an Irish landlord in Sligo. We know the subject of the relations between the Government and the Irish landlords has been sufficiently agitated, and Lord Ashbourne might have refrained from mixing himself up with an Irish landlord, whose conduct in 1881 we remember by his haying a number of suspects put into gaol because they were giving him trouble. I think when Lord Ashbourne goes to support Tory or Unionist candidates for English constituencies, he would do well not to support Irish landlords, or, at all events, such an obnoxious character as Mr. Evelyn Ashley. Then his Lordship, having doffed the ermine and the horsehair, proceeded to lecture the Liberal Party on their vices, and launched out into a great panegyric on the virtues of Members of the present Government. Now, if there is anything indecent I know, it is one Member of a Government getting up and praising another Member. It is a kind of mutual admiration society which is established by that means. It is like the case of a long firm in which the one who is not convicted is put up to give evidence in favour of his "pals" in the dock, ft is quite remarkable that Lord Ashbourne travels 500 miles, and leaves the Court of Appeal in Ireland and the care of wards of Chancery, and goes down to Portsmouth to make a defence of the Unionist Party. The Times says that—
  "His Lordship, on entering the hall in company with the candidate, was received with a loud outburst of cheers."
  What would be thought in Ireland if Lord Halsbury left his robes in the Royal Courts of Justice and came over to Belfast to the Shankhill Board, for instance, or went to South Antrim accompanied by the distinguished Gentleman who sits for that constituency, or even went to Trinity College which the Attorney General adorns by representing, and delivered an address to the Irish nation? We should be inclined to resent it, and to tell Lord Halsbury that as he received a large salary for his duties in England he would be far better engaged there. Lord Ashbourne does not seem satis-
  1282
  fied with getting all his friends and I relatives made Judges in Ireland and in quietly drawing the proceeds of his office, but he must work for others of his relatives, and play for a second term by getting in Unionist candidates and delivering speeches of this character. He said—
  "There was a time when every public man should absolutely and fearlessly meet the public opinion of his country, and speak upon every topic of their public life."
  Well, I do not think so. I do not think Judges are appointed to go on the hustings and speak upon every topic of their public life. What we want Lord Chancellors for is to take care of wards in Chancery and to confine themselves strictly thereto, not to go down to the country "primrosing" and delivering violent speeches. The noble Lord might have taken this long journey without being needlessly offensive. I always notice when a man says he does not mean to be offensive that he invariably says something un-Parliamentary. For myself, I never say anything offensive. Look what his Lordship says of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian. He said—
  "Let any fad be started and Mr. Gladstone's lieutenants will speak upon it, and in such a way that the poor people behind the fad are left to the delusion that it might be a great benefit to them, and that something might be done for them."
  I do not see why the cold shade of silence should pervade the Ministerial Benches at the present moment on hearing this deliverance of a Tory Judge. If this is the tone of speech we are to have when Lord Chancellors leave the Bench, the more they remain on the Bench the better. Then I find his Lordship went on to praise different Members of the Tory Party, but somehow or other he left out the Home Secretary. I do not know why he left out the Home Secretary, but I may be inclined to make a few remarks here-after about that. He says in regard to financial administration—
  "The Government had had great luck in securing the vast aid of the genius of Mr. Goschen."
  And nobody remarked sugar bounties, or publicans' licences, or anything of that kind. But the First Lord of the Treasury was not passed over. But

  1283
  before he came to the First Lord he had a few remarks to make about another gentleman. The noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty was also referred to, and in reference to him Lord Ashbourne said—
  "In their naval administration the present Government and Lord George Hamilton had manifested an earnest desire to put the Navy into a vigorous and efficient state."
  Quite so. He is simply praising his own friends. In regard to the Government of Ireland he says, "The peace and quietness which had been restored they owed in a great measure to the genius of Mr. Balfour." I certainly think if Lord Ashbourne went to deliver a speech in regard to a gentleman whose highest service is that of having passed a beneficent Coercion Act he might, in a more fitting way, have acknowledged the great work which he says the First Lord of the Treasury did on behalf of Ireland when he was Chief Secretary. And this is the class of Judges with whom the Government think it reasonable we should be satisfied to have at the head of the judicial system in Ireland. But he had not one word to say in favour of Mr. Ashmead Bartlett. I most solemnly pledge myself that I have read out every word his Lordship said in praise of the Cabinet or Members of the Government. When the noble Lord thinks it worth his while to leave the quiet of the Four Courts in Dublin to deliver speeches of that kind in favour of the Tory Party, it shows the pass which Castle administration in Ireland has reached. So far as my experience goes, we should have been appalled if any Judge, when Lord Spencer was governing Ireland, had dropped across to deliver a speech in favour of Mr. Foster or the coercion policy of that day. Or what would have been thought if we had sent John Nash to stand in front of the Home Rule van and beat the drum in favour of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian? What would the Orange Party have said—what would the hon. Members for North Armagh and South Tyrone have said—if any other Judge had stood at cross roads and addressed a meeting or done anything of that kind? Supposing there had been a riot at the Portsmouth meeting, would it not have been a pretty spectacle for the Lord
  1284
  Chancellor of Ireland, whom the Irish people were called on to respect, to have been seen "rotten egged" while taking part in the hurly-burly of an election demonstration? I do think such a thing would be calculated to lower the dignity of the Judicial Bench. The House has already pronounced against conduct of the character that has been pursued by the noble Lord and against the Judges of the land taking part in political meetings. And, in addition to the responsibilities of a Judge, there is this further grave position held by his Lordship: that he has practically the appointment of Removable Magistrates and County Court Judges, and has also great influence in the appointment of other Judges in Ireland. He is likewise the right-hand man of the Lord Lieutenant. And we are fairly entitled to expect that a gentleman with the long experience in regard to this House that Lord Ashbourne has should observe the same decorum that he displays in the conduct of his judicial functions with regard to matters of a strong Party character, and should not leave his own country to come over to England and set a bad example to the Judges here by conduct which would not be tolerated on the part of one in their own sphere. Suppose it had been a Removable Magistrate instead of the highest Judge in the land, say, Mr. Cecil Roche; suppose this gentleman, fired by the example of the Lord Chancellor, had come over to help you at the pending election; would that be tolerated? Are Civil servants to be allowed to attend political meetings? In my opinion a most infectious and detrimental example has been set and it will be well if the noble Lord will get up in another place and make some apology for the bad example he has set.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I apprehend that the attack we have just listened to from the hon. and learned Gentleman on the Lord Chancellor of Ireland is not, even from his own point of view, intended to be taken seriously. I gather that from the substance of the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman and from the manner in which he treated certain parts of the subject. In regard to the substance of his criticisms he attacks Lord Ashbourne on

  1285
  two grounds—first, that he has interfered in the controversial part of politics while Lord Chancellor of Ireland; and, secondly, that he has interfered in an election over here, although a Peer. With regard to the first ground. The hon. and learned Gentleman must know perfectly well that to go down to meetings either at Portsmouth or elsewhere, under the circumstances in which Lord Ashbourne attended those meetings, is a matter of every day occurrence on the part of Peers and has never been objected to by this House. The exact limits to which Peers should keep in dealing with election contests I do not propose to lay down; I do not profess to be a lawyer and it is not my duty to interpret these matters. But there can be no doubt, draw the line where you will, that Lord Ashbourne is on the safe side of that line, and in what he did was only following the habitual practice of Peers—sometimes Liberal Peers, sometimes Conservative Peers, and certainly not more Conservative than Liberal Peers. I come to the second substantial contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He appears to think that the fact that Lord Ashbourne is a Judge in very high place in Ireland is a reason why he should not himself take any part in politics in this country, or express any opinion in England on matters of Party policy. The hon. and learned Gentleman must remember that from time immemorial the British practice has been otherwise. From time immemorial the Chancellor of Ireland, as well as of England, has been a Party politician. The Lord Chancellor of England has invariably been a Member of the Cabinet, and the second most important Member of the Cabinet—and so long as you conduct the business of Government by Party you cannot well put any man in a position more obviously involving Party considerations than if you put him in the Cabinet, and if you once swallow that camel there is no need to strain at the gnat of a Peer taking part in politics outside the House of Lords. It is, of course, true that the habit of speaking on platforms at all is comparatively a novel practice so far as politicians in high office are concerned. I should think the number of times Sir Robert
  1286
  Peel spoke on a public platform to any other audience than his own constituents might probably be counted on the fingers of one hand, and probably the same is true of Lord Palmerston. The habit of conducting our Parliamentary Debates at greater length, not only in this House and the other House but on public platforms, is one which, for good or evil, has been increasing with prodigious rapidity in the last 20 or 30 years, and it is evident that this must be so in the case of a Lord Chancellor as in the case of every other politician of note, whether in or out of office. But the duty of Lord Chancellors is not to take a greater part in the political controversies of their day, not to show more than formerly that they are members of one political Party; but occasionally to do, what all other leaders of political Parties have to do, to state the opinions they hold, which everybody knows they hold, before popular audiences on public platforms. Nor has it ever been suggested, either in this House or elsewhere, that the fact that the Lord Chancellor of the day, whether in Ireland or England, was a Party politician, has ever warped his absolute impartiality when on the Bench, or has ever suggested to any suitor who came before him that he was not secure of absolute justice at the hands of his Judge. I do not know that I need say more on the substance of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It did, indeed, strike me during some of his remarks, that what he objected to on the part of Lord Ashbourne was not so much that Lord Ashbourne had made a Party speech, but that that Party speech was one not at all to the taste of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. It struck me that he was not so much anxious to vindicate the position of the Judicial Bench, as anxious to deliver a thrust at a political antagonist—not with a poisoned weapon—but still a thrust at a political antagonist. In referring to the speech of my noble Friend, the hon. and learned Gentleman paid what my noble Friend will, no doubt, regard as a compliment, but one which is not likely to be returned by any Member of the other House with regard to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The chief criticism of the hon. and learned

  1287
  Gentleman upon the speech of my noble Friend at Portsmouth was that it was of too eulogistic a character. He seemed to think my noble Friend indulged in too much agreeable speaking about his friends. If, against my expectations, any speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman is the subject of discussion in another place, the particular point of attack will not be undue indulgence in eulogistic utterances on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is no doubt true my noble Friend praised the administration of some of his colleagues; he may have taken too favourable a view of their performances. The hon. and learned Gentleman has often had to take notice of the behaviour of his colleagues, past and present, and I have not noticed in his utterances that he ever indulged in what might be described as grovelling flattery. That is not the sort of language in which the hon. and learned Gentleman indulges; that is not the kind of speech in which he excels. But that is no reason why he should envy the gifts of others more charitably endowed than himself, or why he should subject to these scathing criticisms, a speech, the ability of which cannot be contested, and which even he will not assert went out of the ordinary and proper line of Party controversy.

  INFLUENZA IN IRISH SCHOOLS.
  MR. TUITE: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary if his attention has been called to the rules of the National Board of Education, insisting on an attendance of 30 children at schools to earn the grant for assistant teachers, and how the operation of that rule has been affected by the epidemic of influenza? In consequence of that epidemic it is difficult to maintain the attendance in some schools, and I think some modification of the rule should be allowed.
  MR. JACKSON: Yes, Sir; I understand that the hon. Member refers to a case where the attendance has been reduced in consequence of illness. I have communicated with the Board in the last ten days or so, and I understand that they always exercise a certain leniency in cases where illness has reduced the attendance slightly below the number requisite for keeping the school open, or in the other case, for
  1288
  requiring an assistant teacher. Certainly, in the case of illness to which the hon. Member has referred, I think they would exercise that indulgence and not order the salary of the assistant teacher to be stopped because there was not full attendance. If the hon. Member has any information to lay before me I will consider it.

  THE IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I wish to call attention to the action of the Post Office Department in regard to a matter raised at question time—the postal facilities for the South of Ireland. I have to acknowledge the courtesy of the Postmaster General in receiving a deputation from the South of Ireland about a month ago, and so far as I am able to judge, the course he has taken is one which he has taken against his judgment, and which he would not have taken if the question had been left in his hands to decide. The right hon. Gentleman told us he was quite in favour of reform, but said the matter rested with the Treasury. I would like to show what the Post Office has done in the matter. The day mail arrives at Cork at a quarter to twelve, and it leaves Cork at ten past one. Taking into consideration the interval between arrival and delivery, and between posting and despatch, there is little more than an hour for answering correspondence. The Cork Chamber of Commerce has over and over again called attention to the matter, and some time ago succeeded in getting the right hon. Gentleman to interest himself in the subject. A similar grievance was brought to his notice with regard to the North of Ireland, and I want to call attention to the difference of the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman in the two cases. At that time the North of Ireland was better off than Cork, as there was a longer interval for answering letters. In face of that fact the right hon. Gentleman did not grudge spending £23,000 in improving the postal arrangements. He spent £5,000 in improving the train services between Dublin and Belfast, and Dublin and Londonderry, and the other part of the sum in securing an alternative route not passing through Dublin, and that

  1289
  for dealing with a volume of letters which the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged did not exceed the volume of local letters passing between Dublin and Cork, and which was less than the volume between Dublin and Cork if the latter included the American mail. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the state of things is unsatisfactory, and pointed out that the Department had spent the sum of £23,000 to give in the North of Ireland an interval of five hours between the arrival of the English mail and its dispatch, and yet the Treasury are not willing to spend £3,000 in order to improve the service to the City of Cork. Any improvement in that service would benefit not merely Cork and the whole of the South of Ireland, but the whole commercial community of England. We have been treated in a somewhat unfair manner. The Postmaster General has told us what he has succeeded in doing for the North of Ireland, and we ask the expenditure of £3,000 to secure a better Mail Service for Cork. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the Treasury, having regard to the expenditure elsewhere, is not willing to grant us this advantage; but I think it is most unfair that the South of Ireland should be sacrificed to the interests of other places. The right hon. Gentleman does not say that the demand is unreasonable, but that the Treasury are unable to consent to it, because money has been spent elsewhere in improving the Mail Service in other parts of Ireland. Not an additional penny will the Treasury consent to spend on the Cork Service, although the benefit would be for the Anglo-American Mail Service as well as for Cork. We know how important this American Mail Service is. We know that other ports are competing with Liverpool for the American mails, and we know the advantages of this service, and what a considerable improvement the expenditure of £3,000 would effect, and the light hon. Gentleman admits the sum is a reasonable one. This is no case in which a Railway Company makes an unreasonable demand for an improvement in a local service, as was said to be the case with the Wexford Mails. Negotiations have taken place with the Great Southern and Western
  1290
  Railway Company, and the right hon. Gentleman has frankly admitted the Company were reasonable in their demand; and yet, after expectations have been raised, we are met with the unsatisfactory and inconclusive statement that the Treasury will not permit the right hon. Gentleman to do what he considers just and right in this matter. I quite believe that the right hon. Gentleman himself is willing to meet the wishes of the people of Cork in this matter, and I do urge him to use all influence with the Treasury that the Southern Mail Service may be put on as satisfactory a footing as the Service for the North of Ireland.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): The time at our disposal will not allow me to do full justice to the Department in relation to this subject. On several occasions I have recognised that hon. Members have a very good case in respect to the imperfect convenience the citizens of Cork now enjoy. We are constantly engaged in levelling up the Post Office Service. It is an agreeable duty when we find ourselves able to effect improvements in the Service and meet the wishes of localities. The Department can claim credit for having done much in recent years in this direction. The accounts show how much has been expended in the last few years in this manner. But everything cannot be done at the same time. We have many demands to meet. Cork does not stand alone in the position of not being satisfied with the Postal Service. There is a largo and important English port in the centre of a great industry now making very similar representations to Cork, and showing that for a few thousand pounds great improvements could be effected. All these matters are considered and noted for attention as soon as circumstances will admit. I recognise that the facilities Cork enjoys are not sufficient, and that the additional sum the Railway company asks for a faster train service, thus allowing a longer interval for the return correspondence to be prepared, is a modest and reasonable request. But the fact is the expenditure upon improvements elsewhere has exhausted the sum we can apply for this purpose

  1291
  for the present, and so this matter stands over for future consideration, and I shall be glad if my tenure of office should allow me the opportunity of meeting the wishes of hon. Members in this respect.

  RATING OF SCHOOLS—IRISH AFFAIRS.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: I take the opportunity to recall to the attention of my right hon. Friend a Bill which, though several times mentioned, has not yet appeared—a Bill as to which there is a good deal of public interest—the Bill for the exemption of schools from rates. That Bill was given a place on the year's programme in redemption of a distinct pledge given last Session, and it has acquired still greater importance from the Debate earlier in the Session in reference to the use of schoolrooms for political meetings. A sort of understanding was come to that a clause in the Bill should embody the Resolution the House then arrived at. These two matters—the exemption of schools from rating, and the use of schools for political meetings—are of so much importance that I think we may ask if the Government are prepared with their proposals on the subject? Of course, if the Bill is not introduced very soon after Easter, the chance of such a Bill passing this Session is not very great. Without unduly pressing the Government, I hope we may have some assurance on this matter.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I do not intend to delay the House, but there are two questions I should like, before we separate, to put before the Chief Secretary. The first of these I have mentioned several times—the steam trawling carried on in Galway Bay. The law against steam trawling within three miles of the coast does not apply to Ireland, and so it is that Scotch and other trawlers, not being able to pursue the practice off other coasts, appear in increasing numbers off the coasts of Mayo and Galway. I hope that during the Recess the Chief Secretary will obtain information on this matter, and, if possible, arrange with the Admiralty for the presence of a fast gunboat, which will protect the interests of the Irish fishermen. Then the other point I desire to mention is the claim of the Christian
  1292
  Brothers' Schools to assistance under the Education Bill. I trust that the Government will obtain full information on this matter, so that when the Education Bill comes on we may not be told that the Schools of the Christian Brothers are entirely outside the pale of the Education Department. If the Secretary to the Treasury would make an official report as he has made an unofficial report, he would do great service.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. J. G. Talbot) desires us to bring on the Rating of Schools Bill. As he is aware, the House adopted the suggestion which I think emanated from himself, that added to that Bill there should be a clause dealing with the use of schoolrooms for other than purely educational purposes. I believe the Bill has been drafted, but whether it will be possible to find time to discuss it depends upon the progress we are able to make with other measures. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Nolan) has mentioned two matters, trawling and the Christian Brothers' Schools. I think my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was present to hear the request in reference to the Christian Brothers' Schools, and I have no doubt he will keep the subject in view and make himself thoroughly acquainted with the circumstances. As to steam trawling and the change which the hon. and gallant Gentleman says is taking place in the fishing in Irish waters, that also is a question which demands, as it will receive, serious consideration.
  MR. SEXTON: The Irish Education Bill will receive close scrutiny, and probably will be met with prolonged debate; and with this in view, I wish to say that the Return laid before the House on the Motion of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) is of an extremely partial character, and, standing alone, will cause a very incorrect judgment to be formed of material facts in relation to Irish education. I shall put down a Motion which I hope to move when we reassemble after the Recess, for a second and supplementary Return which will qualify the imperfect and partial statement of facts as it appears in the

  1293
  Return of the hon. Member. It is desirable in view of the Debate that this second Return should be granted as soon as possible. If it is not granted, I must obtain the facts as far as I can in any other way open to me, for they are pertinent to the Debate on the Education Bill; but I think it will tend to economy of time if they are put before us in form not open to doubt. I take this opportunity to direct attention to the Motion of which I shall give notice this evening.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I may remind the hon. Member that the Return is not in the form in which I placed my notice on the Paper, but in the form in winch the Government expressed willingness to give it, and therefore I am not responsible for any partial character it may have. But my purpose in rising is to ask the First Lord if he can indicate the day after the Recess when the Education Bill will be taken? It is a subject of the greatest interest to a large number of people in Ireland, and I shall be glad if he can indicate the probable time when it will be reached.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot give any positive pledge beyond saying that it will not be taken in the first week after the holidays.
  SIR W. FOSTER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when Committee on the Small Holdings Dill will be resumed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My idea is that we ought to reach it on the Monday in the second week, May 2nd. The previous Thursday I anticipate will be occupied with the Budget discussion.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Before we separate I should like to say a word with reference to the prisoner Egan, now confined in Portland Prison, and as to whom I put a question to the Home Secretary to-day. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say he had reconsidered the case, but I am anxious to know if he is still open to receive information I can put before him? It will be in the recollection of the House that when the question of amnesty was brought before us some twelve months ago by my late Friend and Leader (Mr. Parnell), and more recently by the hon. Member for Water-ford (Mr. J. E. Redmond), a clear distinc
  1294
  tion was shown to exist between the cases of Egan and the other prisoners convicted at the same time. The late Home Secretary (Sir W. Harcourt) admitted that Egan's case stood on different ground, and the right hon. Gentleman is the real gaoler in the case I suppose. I think the present Home Secretary expressed a similar opinion, and what I now want to ask is whether the right hon. Gentleman is still open to receive and consider information I can put before him in relation to Superintendent Black of Birmingham, whose evidence was mainly responsible for Egan's conviction? I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will give an assurance that he will give full consideration to facts which should lead strongly in the direction of a release of this prisoner.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I cannot say that I have in the least altered the view I have previously expressed in regard to this case; but certainly, if material facts are brought before me, I shall always be ready to consider and to give full weight to them.
  DR. TANNER: One matter in relation to Irish fisheries. There have been many remonstrances addressed to the authorities against the daily destruction of immature fish on the Irish coasts; and, putting the matter into a very few words, I would press upon the Chief Secretary that something should be done to prevent this destruction in the interest of a valuable Irish industry.
  MR. JACKSON: It shall be borne in mind.
  MR. CREMER: Can the First Lord of the Treasury tell us what is the intention as to Morning Sittings after the Recess?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not at present.
  MR. CREMER: It is important to hon. Members who have Motions for Tuesdays or Fridays to have some indication.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot give any intimation now. The arrangement for Morning Sittings ceases at Easter. As soon as there is any necessity for further time for Government measures I will communicate it to the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, "That this House at the conclusion of the Morning Sitting this day do adjourn until Monday the 25th April."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 229.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. HOWELL: May I be allowed to say that an important communication representing the views of the shipowners of the United Kingdom in reference to this Bill has been received, and will, during the Recess, be most carefully considered by Members whose names are on the back of the Bill; and if the Bill is now given a Second Reading the Committee stage shall be fixed for a distant date?
  SIR E. HARLAND: I object.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday, 25th April.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (PURCHASE) BILL.—(No. 213.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Monday, 25th April.
  SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) EXTRACTS BILL.—(No. 119.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Ordered—
  That Standing Orders 39 and 129 be suspended, and that the time for depositing Petitions against Private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order, or Provisional Certificate, and for depositing duplicates of any Documents relating to any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order, or Provisional Certificate, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the recess.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

  MOTIONS.

    MIDWIVES' REGISTRATION.
    The Select Committee on Midwives' Registration, nominated of—Mr. Bright, Mr. Tatton Egerton, Dr. Farquharson, Sir Frederick Fitz Wygram, Dr. Fox, Mr. Howorth, Sir Guyer Hunter, Mr. Fell Pease, Mr. Rathbone, Mr. Stephens, and Mr. Arthur Williams.
    Ordered, That five be the quorum.—(Mr. Fell Pease.)

    PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (MILNATHORT) WATER BILL.
    On Motion of the Lord Advocate, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under "The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867," relating to Milnathort Water, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 280.]

    WITNESSES (ROYAL COMMISSION AND PARLIAMENT) PROTECTION BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Yerburgh, Bill to make provision for the better protection of witnesses giving evidence before any Royal Commission or any Committee of either House of Parliament, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Yerburgh, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Forrest Fulton, and Mr. Story-Maskelyne.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 287.]

    RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Sinclair, Bill to amend "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Sinclair, Mr. Jeffreys, Mr. Philip Stanhope, Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. W. F. Lawrence, and Mr. Barclay.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 288.]

    JURY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Pitt-Lewis, Bill to amend the Law as to Grand and Petty Juries, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Pitt-Lewis, Mr. Bernard Coleridge, Mr. Kimber, and Mr. John Kelly.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 289.]

    DISTRICT COURTS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Pitt-Lewis, Bill to amend the Judicature Acts by the establishment of District Courts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Pitt-Lewis, Mr. John Kelly, and Mr. Atherley-Jones.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 290.]

    DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Jackson, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Drainage and Improvement of Land in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 292.]
    It being Seven of the clock, Mr. Speaker, in pursuance of the Resolution of the blouse this day, adjourned the House until Monday, 25th April, without Question put.
    House adjourned at Seven o'clock till Monday, 25th April.