Commons Sitting of 20 August 1895

Preamble
The House met at Three of the Clock.
Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed.
MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.
Account [presented 19th August] to be printed.—[No. 426.]

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (ILLI TERATE VOTERS) (GENERAL ELEC- TION, 1895).
Address for:—
"Return showing the number of Persons who voted as Illiterates at the General Election of 1895 in the United Kingdom (in continuation of and in the same form as Parliamentary Paper, No. 76, of Session 1893)."—(Mr. R. G. Webster.)

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (EXPENSES.)
Address for:—
"Return of Charges made to Candidates at the General Election of 1895, in Great Britain and Ireland, by Returning Officers, specifying the total Expenses of each Candidate (both exclusive and inclusive of Returning Officer's Charges), delivered to the Returning Officer pursuant to the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act, 1883, and the number of Votes polled for each Candidate (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 423, of Session 1893) (in form set out); the totals of each column to be shown separately for England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, with a Summary showing the gross totals."—(Mr. R. G. Webster.)

NAVY (SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME, 1889–90).
Order [28th March 1895] for a Return relative thereto, read, and discharged; and, instead thereof:—

NAVY (SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME UNDER NAVAL DEFENCE ACT, 1889).
Return ordered:—
"Relative to the Memorandum of the Secretary of the Admiralty, dated the 8th day of March 1889 (Parliamentary Paper, No. 67, of Session
362
1889), giving (1) in regard to the 38 Ships intended by the New Programme to be built in Her Majesty's Dockyards, in comparison with the estimated Expenditure therein shown, the actual Expenditure under each head for each of the years therein contained, and also, with reference to the anticipated difference of £3,054,000 therein said to be available 'for laying down new Vessels, or in reducing the Estimates for the years 1892–3 and 1893–4,' information as to what sums were applied to either of these two Services respectively; and (2) in regard to the 32 Ships included in the New Programme, to be constructed by Contract, similar information, in italics, as to the actual Expenditure on the Services therein referred to in comparison to the estimated Expenditure."—(Mr. Macartney.
Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.— [No. 427.]

QUESTIONS.

  COASTGUARDS MEN.
  SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty—(1) how many men of the Coastguard and how many of the Naval Reserves (first and second class) were embarked for service during the recent Manœuvres; (2) whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to redress a long standing grievance of the Coastguardsmen relative to their shore pay, which is 2d. per day less than when afloat; and (3) whether he can see his way to redress a grievance of the Naval Reserves, "that when afloat they shall have pay equivalent to that of the union rate of wages in the Mercantile Marine?"
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): Seventy-eight chief officers and 1,196 men of the Coastguard were embarked in coastguard ships, and 575 Royal Naval Reserve men (comprising 232 first-class, 314 second-class, and 29 firemen) were embarked in various ships. The Royal Naval Reserve men were borne in addition to full complements. There is no proposal before the Board to give coastguard men re-engaged pay of 2d. a day. With regard to the third question, I am unable to see what bearing the union rate of wages in the Mercantile

  363
  Marine can have on the wages of the Naval Reserve men, whose conditions of service are perfectly different, and who enjoy retainers, which are not paid, so far as I know, by private shipowners.

  CHURCH OF ST. PAUL, VALETTA.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies—(1) is it intended to make any alteration in the arrangements connected with the Church of St. Paul, Valetta, built by the late Queen Dowager Adelaide for the vise of the Anglican community in Malta, which have existed for the last 50 years; (2) can the correspondence on this subject be laid upon the Table of the House; and (3) is there any truth in the report that this Church, as thus given by the late Queen Dowager, is now to be converted into a Military Chapel?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN,): The Church of St. Paul, Valetta, which was built at the expense of the late Queen Adelaide for the use of the Protestant inhabitants of Malta and Her Majesty's Land and Sea Forces employed there, has hitherto been served by the Chaplain to the Government. Last year, in answer to an address from the Council of Government of Malta praying for the abolition of the salary of the Chaplain, the late Secretary of State said that when the office became vacant the question of its abolition would be considered; and subsequently he approved of a proposal made by the Governor, with the concurrence of the present Chaplain and of the Bishop of Gibraltar, that the present Chaplain should retire on a pension and that the office should thereupon be abolished provided that arrangements were made for protecting the interests of the non-military portion of the congregation of St. Paul's Church. The question of the arrangements to be made for that purpose on the abolition of the Chaplaincy are still under consideration. When the correspondence is complete, I will consider whether it can be laid. The answer to the third question is in the negative.

  POLICE PENSIONS.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether representations have reached him complaining of the superannuation allowances to the police in Scotland being on a considerably lower scale than such allowances are in England; and whether he will take steps to redress the inequality of pension rights by raising police pensions in Scotland to the same level as in England?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir CHARLES PEARSON,): In reply to the hon. Member, I must refer him to the answer given by me yesterday to the hon. Members for the north division of Ayrshire, and for Peebles and Selkirk.

  GROCERS' LICENCES IN SCOTLAND.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate—(1) whether he is aware that the recommendations made by a Royal Commission presided over by Sir James Fergusson in 1878–9, with regard to grocers' licences in Scotland, still remain unacted upon; and (2) whether, before the next Session of Parliament, he will consider the propriety of giving legislative effect to those recommendations.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I am aware of the fact stated in the first part of the hon. Member's question; and in reply to the second part, I can at present give no undertaking as to legislative proposals for next Session.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether he will cause inquiries to be made of the chief constables of police whether there are still prevalent the evils arising out of the imperfections of the Law regulating grocers' licenses in Scotland, which were reported by the Royal Commission of 1878?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I will consult with the Secretary for Scotland as to the propriety of making the inquiry suggested by my right hon. Friend.

  IRISH LANDING PLACES.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will ascertain from the Board of Works

  365
  whether they can improve the approach to the pier at Dingle by using their new dredger to remove the mud which is filling up the channel and making the pier inaccessible except in high tides?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I understand from the Board of Works that it is doubtful whether their dredgers would be suitable for removing the mud deposits in Dingle Bay, and that, moreover, it is questionable whether a channel to the pier could be excavated and kept open, without continual dredging and considerable expenditure. However, I am making further inquiries in the matter.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will draw the attention of the Congested Districts Board to the advisability of improving the landing place at Ballydavid, county Kerry, and also of constructing a small boat slip at Lack, in Dingle Bay; and, he will urge on the work of constructing the pier in Scraggane Bay, so as to give employment to the people of the locality during the winter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not in a position to express an opinion on the merits of the proposals made in the question, but they shall be brought before the Congested Districts Board at its next meeting.

  MILITIA STAFF SERGEANTS.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDS: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for War, if he will consider the case of Sergeants of the permanent staff of the Militia serving on Militia engagements (under par. 609 of Militia Regulations), with a view to placing them on the same footing as regards pay and pension as non-commissioned officers of the permanent staff who are serving on Army engagements?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): This question has been fully considered, and the Secretary of State is unable to add anything to the reply given by the late Secretary of State to a similar question put to him on the 8th May, last year, by the hon. Member for South Leitrim.

  FRANCE AND THE MEKONG.
  MR. R. MCKENNA: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the numerous statements in the French Press that it is untrue that France ever accepted the hypothesis of the creation of a buffer State on the two banks of the Mekong, whether this hypothesis was accepted by France in the two Protocols dated 25th November, 1893, the first signed by the French and English delegates for the discussion of the buffer State on the Upper Mekong, and the second signed by the Marquess of Dufferin and M. Develle?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): The hypothesis of a buffer State or intermediary zone was accepted by the French Government, and the Protocols in question were printed in the Parliamentary Blue Book, Siam, No. 1, 1894.

  SCHOOL EXPENDITURE.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in the Annual Report of the Committee of Council on Education a general statement of income and expenditure of all School Boards is furnished, but that in the case of denominational schools aided by Parliamentary grants the amount of the annual grant is the only financial detail given; and whether, in view of the large expenditure of public money by denominational schools, he will in future reports furnish, by means of a separate table, the details of their expenditure, and thus place them on the same footing as School Boards?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The hon. Member will see, on referring to the Return given in the Annual Report, that it is for School Boards, and not for individual Board Schools. A Return such as that which the hon. Member desires was presented to this House in August 1894, and, I hope, will serve the purpose of the hon. Member. He will see, from the bulky character of the Return, and the mass of detail involved in it, that to give it annually would be a very costly matter.

  NORTH SEA CANAL AND NAVAL HOSPITALITY.
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether, on the occasion of the opening of the North Sea Canal by His Majesty the German Emperor, the German ships of war, in pursuance of official instructions, entertained the officers of Her Majesty's ships present to represent the nation; whether the cost of returning such hospitality was wholly, or in a large measure, borne by the officers of Her Majesty's ships; and, whether any entertainment allowance has been granted to the officers other than Flag Officers; and, if not, whether, in view of the official character of the Feêtes, the Admiralty will favourably consider the propriety of making such an allowance, and thus relieving the junior officers of a portion of the very heavy expense entailed upon them.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The question of the expenses incurred by the officers of the Channel Squadron in entertaining the foreign officers during the late international festivities is under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty. The subject is surrounded by many difficulties; hospitality is frequently extended by British naval officers to foreign officers in many parts of the world, and often the expense of its exercise by a small ship on an obscure but necessary occasion falls as heavily on the individual officers as entertaining on a large scale does on a large ship on an international occasion. Something has been done already with regard to the expenditure of the Channel Squadron during the visit of the Italian Fleet at Portsmouth; but, as I have said, the question is under consideration.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the general question of making an allowance as a matter of course to all officers and not as a matter of special concession to those of the Channel Squadron?
  Mr. GOSCHEN: That is just one of the difficulties with which the question is surrounded. If, as a matter of course, British officers who entertain foreign officers are to be recouped their outlay, the act of hospitality would be regarded as losing much of its grace and spontaniety; and to give a general permission to naval officers to entertain those of
  368
  other countries would not be in accordance with the traditions of the Service or the means of the Exchequer. I can assure the hon. Member the Lords of the Admiralty are not anxious to impose on naval officers any expenses which they cannot bear; but the lavishness of expenditure on hospitality might depend very much on whether it came from the resources of the State or the pockets of naval officers.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is there not a general allowance of this kind already made to superior officers in the shape of table money, and could not a similar allowance be made to inferior officers on whom the charge for hospitality falls with great severity?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Admiralty look upon it as part of their pay. The Admirals of a station where there is occasion for little hospitality receive the same as others, and they regard it as part of their pay. I can assure the hon. Member we have no wish to approach the question in any spirit of illiberality, but I do not think we can possibly make a general rule.

  DR. HERZ.
  MR. A GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he would lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Correspondence which has passed between the Home Office and the French Government with reference to the case of Dr. Herz; and also a copy of the Report of Dr. Russell Reynolds on the prisoner's state of health in 1893, and his subsequent Report?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RIDLEY,): I cannot see that any good purpose would be served by laying upon the Table of the House the correspondence referred to. Speaking generally, that correspondence has been limited to a representation as to the serious condition of Herz's health and the impossibility of removing him to London, and an inquiry whether the French Government persisted in their requisition for his surrender, to which a reply in the affirmative was returned. Sir Russell Reynolds has three times visited Herz and reported on his health;

  369
  his reports are confidential in their details, and it would be contrary to practice to publish such documents. Her Majesty's Government are now in communication with the French Government with a view to a fresh convention being come to which would enable the Act of last Session to be put in force.

  LICENSING HOUSES AND MILITARY UNIFORMS.
  MR. A. M. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that on a recent occasion, at the Central Hotel, Portsmouth, refreshments were refused to Regular Soldiers and Volunteers on the ground that they were wearing Her Majesty's uniform; and, whether the Military Authorities contemplate taking any steps with regard to the renewal of a licence for the Central Hotel, at Portsmouth?
  MR. BRODRICK: Soldiers in uniform were not excluded from the public bar of the hotel in question, but from a bar which was alleged to be a private bar. The law on this question was stated as follows by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth, when Home Secretary:—
  "It was not legal for the innkeeper to exclude the soldier, but it was not to be understood that he could be compelled to admit him into every room. The wearers of the Queen's uniform, so far from being subject to such exclusion, ought to be treated with special honour."
  Steps are being taken locally with regard to renewal of the licence of the Central Hotel, and meanwhile the house has been placed "out of bounds."

  BERRIEW EDUCATIONAL ORDER.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been drawn to the promise of the late Vice President on 29th March, and if he could devise any reasonable means, even by an Act of Parliament itself, by which the Berriew Scheme could be brought before Parliament for such discussion as it ought to have received, he should be very glad to adopt that means; and whether the present Government would
  370
  introduce a Bill repealing the Order in Council which brought it into effect.
  SIR JOHN GORST: My attention has been drawn to the matter referred to by the hon. Member, and the Government are prepared to introduce a Bill this Session to repeal the Order in Council which brought the Berriew Scheme into effect. The Government hope, after the promise given by the late Vice President, to be able to pass the Bill as an unopposed measure; but the hon. Member will understand that, if there is any opposition, it will not be possible to proceed with the Bill during the present Session.

  ACCIDENT AT CHATHAM DOCKYARD.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, whether his attention has been called to the case of Robert Rigden, who was injured in Chatham Dockyard in August 1893; and, whether the Admiralty have verified the information placed at their disposal by the hon. Member for Rochester in June of this year; and, if so, whether they will reconsider their refusal to augument Robert Rigden's pension?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. J. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): My attention has been directed by the Noble Lord's question to the case of Robert Rigden. The information placed at the disposal of the Admiralty by the hon. Member for Rochester is contrary to the information already in the possession of the Admiralty; but, it is not considered necessary to verify it, as the pension already awarded to Rigden could not in any circumstances be augmented, without going beyond the provisions of the Superannuation Act, which neither the Admiralty nor the Treasury have any power to do.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman, whether he will consider the propriety of granting an independent inquiry, as there is an absolute conflict of testimony, between those who inform me and the Authorities of the Admiralty?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will certainly consider that point, if the noble Lord desires it.

  UNIVERSITY OF WALES.
  MR. D. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it is the intention of the Government to continue the grant of £3,000 per annum to the University of Wales?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): A grant of £3,000 was made for the last financial year (1894–95) for preliminary expenses of the University. This, I understand, was found insufficient, and my predecessor undertook that a Grant of the same amount should be made for the current financial year. Provision for this will be made in the Supplementary Estimates, which will shortly be in the hands of hon. Members.

  MARKING FOREIGN-MADE GLASS.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will consider the propriety of taking steps, either by further regulations or by amendment of the law, to require more distinct marking on goods of foreign origin, and in particluar on articles of foreign-made glass?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The right hon. Gentleman will probably remember that a Select Committee of the House of Commons on the administration of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, reported that they were unable to recommend the compulsory marking of all goods. They were of opinion that it would seriously restrict trade and virtually destroy the business of warehousemen, commission agents, and small masters, and that such an enactment would of necessity involve the insertion of a clause in any international convention imposing similar obligations on this country in respect of goods made in England but sold abroad. I have not myself studied the Report referred to, but will make it my business to do so.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONasked whether he was aware that the manufacturers of this country took a different view.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid that might be so, but he presumed that the position they took up was put before the Committee. It was after considering the pros and cons
  372
  of the matter that the Committee arrived at the conclusion they did.
  In answer to Mr. PROVAND (Glasgow, Blackfriars),
  MR. RITCHIEsaid the date of the Report of the Committee would be found in the Library.

  BURIAL BOARD FEES.
  MR. J. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the result of the promised action of the Home Office in regard to the illegal tables of fees and charges adopted by the burial boards of Bishop's Stortford, Weston-super-Mare, Walton-on-Thames, Aylsham, Soham, and Uxbridge; and whether, in view of these and other cases of the like kind, he will take steps to ensure that no tables of fees and charges in parochial cemeteries shall in future receive the approval of the Secretary of State which are not in conformity with the requirements of the law in regard to fees for interments in the consecrated and un-consecrated parts thereof respectively?
  SIR M. W. RIDLEY: The burial boards of Bishop's Stortford, Walton and Aylsham have now adopted and put in force satisfactory tables of fees. In the other three cases correspondence is in progress with the prospect in each case of a satisfactory settlement. The defects in these and similar tables have arisen, not from the Secretary of State having approved fees which are not in conformity with the law, but from the burial boards printing in their tables, without proper explanation, fees not approved by the Secretary of State. Care will be taken in the Home Office, in the future as in the past, that no fees are approved, but such as are in conformity with law.

  DISTRESS IN NEWFOUNDLAND.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much British money has recently been expended in Newfoundland under circumstances under which relief from taxes is habitually refused in England; and

  373
  what Vote will be presented on which the appointment of an Imperial Relief Commissioner can be discussed.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: About £15,000 was expended by the Special Commissioner in the relief of distress in Newfoundland, in addition to which he gave guarantees amounting to about £7,000. The sum which will have to be paid under these guarantees will depend on the success of the fishing operations. A vote will be proposed for the sum of £20,000 on this account in the Supplementary Estimate of the amount required in the current financial year for sundry colonial services, and the subject can be discussed on that occasion. I may add that the circumstances in Newfoundland under which this relief was given have, happily for us, never been paralleled in this country; but, nevertheless, although generally cases of distress must be dealt with by the local authorities and out of local funds, there have been occasions of an exceptional character upon which Her Majesty's Government have felt justified in giving assistance, even in England, while in Ireland it has been matter of common occurrence.

  BALLYMAHON UNION.
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the proposal to dissolve the Ballymahon Union; whether he is aware that in the majority voting for this Motion were a number of ex-officio members of the Board who rarely attend the meetings to transact the ordinary business of the Union, whilst local opinion is strongly against this proposal, and the Report of the Local Government Board Inspector shows that it would entail a serious financial loss to the ratepayers of Ballymahon; and whether, under the circumstances, the Local Government Board will consent to the proposal being carried into operation?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that a special meeting of the Board of Guardians was held on the 31st July ultimo to consider the proposal to dissolve this Union, with the result that nine elected and five ex-officio
  374
  guardians voted in favour of amalgamation with adjoining Unions, and seven elected Guardians against the proposal. It appears from the calculations made by the Local Government Board Inspector that the ratepayers would probably be called upon to pay a slightly increased rate in the event of dissolution whilst the other Unions concerned would gain in this respect. The entire matter is now, however, receiving the consideration of the Local Government Board, who have not yet decided whether they will give effect to the wishes of the Guardians in the matter.

  BOYLE MILITARY BARRACKS.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state if it is the intention of the military authorities in Ireland to have the military barracks in Boyle occupied by an infantry detachment during the winter months; and whether he can state if there are any military reasons why the practice carried out by previous Governments of stationing troops in Boyle should not be continued?
  MR. BRODRICK: It is contrary to the present military system to break up battalions into small detachments, a course which is found to be bad for discipline and for efficient military instruction. The barrack at Boyle having only accommodation for a small body of men, is occupied at present by the Permanent Staff of the 5th Battalion of the Connaught Rangers. It has not been occupied by other troops since 1890, and it is not proposed to remove troops there from other stations.

  ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in regard to the merchant steamers which earn a subvention as armed cruisers, but are stationed in the North Pacific Ocean, those members of the crew who are also Royal Naval Reserve men are enabled to re-enrol as Reserve or to receive the retaining fee due to them unless they report themselves personally in the United Kingdom, a step involving the giving up their employment, and the expenditure of time and money in making

  375
  the journey home; and, whether steps can be taken to obviate these difficulties, and to permit of the enrolment and re-enrolment of members of the Royal Naval Reserve in such stations as Esquimault and Hong Kong, and the payment at those naval stations of the fees that may be due for service in the Reserve?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The question has recently been under the consideration of a departmental committee appointed by the late Board of Admiralty, and it is proposed to obtain statutory authority to amend the Act for the establishment of Royal Naval Volunteers (22 & 23 Vict., c. 40), so as to give power to enrol and re-enrol men abroad, and for the payment of their retainers.

  BRASS RIVER TROUBLES.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Report on the recent troubles on the Brass River by the Special Commissioner, Sir John Kirk, has yet been received; and whether the information thus obtained will be laid upon the Table before her Majesty's Government come to any final decision as to any new arrangement for the administration of the territories concerned?
  MR. WILLIAM LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sir John Kirk's Report, re Niger territories, will be issued to Members during the present Session; and, if not, how soon before will it be made public; and, whether there is any truth in the rumour that it is proposed to hand over to the Royal Niger Company any part of the territory of the Niger Coast Protectorate?
  MR. CURZON: The Report of Sir John Kirk has not yet been received; nor can a promise be given that it will be laid before Parliament. It is a Report intended for the information of her Majesty's Government on various questions relating to the administration of the Protectorate. Until it has been received no decision will be taken on the matters affected.

  TRANSMISSION OF SEAMEN'S WAGES
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in reference to the successful experiment recently made at Dunkirk in the transmission home of wages due to British seamen discharged it foreign ports, facilities will now be afforded in other ports besides Dunkirk?
  MR. RITCHIE: The transmission experiment at Dunkirk has been made under somewhat exceptional circumstances, and the Board of Trade are anxious to have further experience of the operation of the system there under more normal conditions before deciding to extend it to other continental ports. The experiment at Dunkirk will, therefore, be continued for another year before any further steps are taken.
  MR. A. J. MUNDELLA: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the cost has been for the first year?
  MR. RITCHIE: My recollection is the cost has exceeded the receipts by about £120. Of course the right hon. Gentleman knows there was a large transmission of wages through the Post Office before the experiment was tried.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Fifty-two and a half per cent, last year.
  MR. RITCHIE: It was not more than 10 or 15 per cent, more than it was before.

  WARRANT OFFICERS.
  MR. HUDSON E. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Report of the Departmental Committee which has been investigating the question of an improved status to Warrant Officers has been considered by the Board of Admiralty; and, if so, whether any decision has yet been arrived at?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The question of the pay and position of Warrant Officers is still under consideration, and no decision has yet been arrived at.

  ARMY MINERAL WATER SUPPLIES.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Royal Artillery Canteen at Dover

  377
  has commenced the manufacture of mineral waters, and is endeavouring to trade for the supply of other regiments; whether it is with the sanction of the Government that the military have gone into competition with manufacturers and labourers engaged in this branch of trade; whether the Government will insist that regular trade wages are paid by these military manufacturers to their employÉs, as is required of all other caterers for Government contracts; and whether the Government intend to allow these military manufacturers to contract for the supply of the Army in Ireland, to the injury of the mineral water trade, which is one of the few prosperous Irish industries?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Regulations do not forbid the canteen of one battalion to sell to that of another, but inquiry will be made whether this privilege has been abused in this case. There is no intention of allowing the supply of other units to be extended in the manner suggested in the question.

  COMMISSIONERS OF THE PEACE, IRELAND.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Return, No. 397, of the Commissioners of Peace, Ireland, ordered to be printed 6th July, 1895, will contain all the appointments to the Commission of the Peace made by ex-Lord Chancellor Walker; and, if not, whether he has any objection to grant the further Return?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that the names of all persons to whom the Commission of the Peace has been issued by the late Government will be found in Return No. 397 referred to, and Return No. 463 of the Session of 1893, of which the former is a continuation.

  PUBLIC HEALTH BILL (SCOTLAND).
  MR. J. M'KILLOP: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce next Session a Public Health Bill for Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I am unable to say whether any Bill dealing
  378
  with the subject mentioned by my hon. Friend will be introduced next Session, but the propriety of doing so will be carefully considered.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC IN BECHUANALAND
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the safeguards connected with the liquor traffic in Bechuanaland, referred to in Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: The papers which will be laid on the Table will include the information desired by the honourable Baronet.

  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence that passed between him and the Promoters with regard to the proposed guarantee to the West Highland Railway. And what was the date of the communication that he made to Mr. Cameron of Lochiel, in which it is alleged that he promised to press forward this Bill during the present Session.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Correspondence on this subject was laid on the Table in May last. There has been none since the present Government took office. The two last Governments promised a guarantee to the promoters of this railway; and when the late Government resigned a notice stood on the Order-book of a Resolution to carry it into effect. Soon after I accepted office, I was asked by Mr. Cameron of Lochiel, who, I understand, is largely interested in the district, whether I would fulfil the promise made by my predecessor, and introduce a Bill on the subject in this Session. I replied that I felt myself bound by the promise of the late Government, and would do my best to introduce a Bill this Session, but that the arrangement of business rested not with me, but with the Leader of the House.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Is it a fact that the right hon. Gentleman stated that he would endeavour to push forward this Motion during the present Session?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Certainly.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first public announcement of the intention of the Government to press forward this guarantee for the West Ireland Railway was made at a political meeting held in the interests of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire the day before the polling? [Cheers.]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he did not know what use might have been made of his letter, but it was written long before the polling.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman has not given me the date.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It was soon after I took office.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELasked whether the Bill was not abandoned in the last Parliament because regarded as contentious, and yet the present Government intended to introduce it?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he hoped, with the sanction of the Leader of the House, to introduce the Bill, and, if it proved to be contentious, it would fall under the rule already stated to the House.

  LOSS OF H.M.S. "VICTORIA."
  CAPTAIN BETHELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether it is the case that the compensation for loss of kit to the surviving officers and men of H.M.S. Victoria has not been yet fully paid, and what is the cause of the delay?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The final balances of compensation to the men were settled in May, 1894. Compensation on the then existing scale was made to officers in September and October, 1893, and a further compensation under the new regulations recently approved was made last month.

  JUDICIAL RENTS IN IRELAND.
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, having regard to the great fall in prices of cattle and agricultural products in Ireland, and to the fact that the oat, hay, and flax crops are barely half an average crop, he will take steps to secure an immediate revision of judicial rents in Ireland, and will he bring in some such measure of relief for Irish farmers during the present Session?
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that, owing to the abnormally low prices of staple Irish farm products, and to the losses entailed upon Irish farmers by the prolonged drought in the spring and the wet hay and corn harvest, it will be absolutely impossible for many of them to pay their rents in full this year, and, whether he will take steps to meet this emergency by passing a Bill for the temporary revision of judicial rents during the present Session?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed by the Agricultural Department of the Land Commission, that it appears from the return of actual transactions collected by that department that during the present year the price of store cattle has been fully maintained throughout Ireland when compared with the prices of the past year. The returns also show that the prices of several of the agricultural products have not maintained the average prices of last year, though to what extent this slight fall may be of a permanent nature it is not possible to say.
  MR. JAMES DALYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to lay the information he had obtained upon this subject upon the table?
  Mr. GERALD BALFOUR: Certainly.
  CAPTAIN DONELANasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that the average price of butter in Ireland during the summer had been under 6d. a pound, and that even now the top price of butter in the Cork Butter Market was only 8d. a pound; and whether he was aware that the average price of oats on Saturday last in the Cork Corn Market was only 6d. per

  381
  stone. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of prices such as these and of the disastrous harvest in Ireland, it was not obviously impossible for the Irish farmer to meet his rent in full this year? ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. KILBRIDEasked whether the Gentleman who had supplied the return to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred had anticipated the price of store cattle in the fall of this year—a matter of more importance to the Irish farmer in respect of his power of meeting his year's rent than the spring prices were. In view of the probable action of the Government in prohibiting the importation of Canadian cattle into England and Scotland the matter was one of general interest.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that it must be obvious to the House that he was not in a position to answer these detailed questions as to the prices of commodities. He must really ask hon. Members to put their questions down upon the paper.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could say whether the price of whisky had fallen. [Laughter.]
  No answer was given to this question.

  IRISH ORDNANCE SURVEY.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state the progress made with the 25-inch Irish survey, and how many counties are at present mapped, and at what cost?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,): The whole of the County Dublin and portions of the Counties of Kerry, Galway and Roscommon have been published on the 25-inch scale, and resurvey on that scale is now proceeding in Clare, Galway, Kerry and Mayo, and in various towns of which plans are required by the Commissioner of Valuation. The total area surveyed up to the 31st December last was 4,751 square miles, the area published being 1,646 square miles. I am doubtful whether it will be possible for me to give anything but a very rough estimate of the cost of a single item only
  382
  of the work of the Survey in Ireland, but I shall be glad to make inquiry on the subject and communicate with my hon. Friend.

  ILLEGAL TRAWLING ON THE IRISH COAST.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a steam launch has been repeatedly asked for and promised to protect the fishermen at Galway and other fishing ports from trawlers which trawl within the legal limits; and whether the Government will give equal protection to Irish fishermen as that afforded around the coasts of England and Scotland by coastguards and steam launches?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Applications for a cruiser or gunboat to protect the fishermen at Galway and other fishing ports from trawlers which trawl within the legal limits have been made from time to time to the Irish Government. Where the circumstances of the case appeared to require it, application has been made by the Irish Government to the Admiralty, who have occasionally detailed gunboats and cruisers for duty in response to such requests. The question of sending vessels for the purpose rests entirely with the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty. The coastguards have instructions in Ireland, as in England, to report any breaches of fishery laws which come to their knowledge.
  MR. W. FIELDasked whether it was the intention of the Government to give the same facilities for the protection of fishermen around the coast of Ireland as were enjoyed at present by Scotch fishermen. Could not a steam launch or two be sent round the coast of Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I will consult the Admiralty on the subject.

  WICKLOW HARBOUR.
  MR. WILLIAM CORBET: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that an application has been made for a free grant of £30,000 for Wicklow Harbour, and whether he will ask for that sum in the Irish Estimates?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): Besides incurring considerable expense in employing Sir Alexander Rendel to examine the harbour, the Treasury have offered to cancel the outstanding unguaranteed loan of about £9,000, together with interest accrued since 1881, to reduce the interest on the guaranteed loan of £40,000 from 4¼ per cent, to 4 per cent., and to advance a new loan of £35,000, if the local Baronies and the Town of Wicklow will on their side guarantee its repayment. I understand that the charge which the Baronies and Town would thereby incur could be met by a rate of 2½d. in the £ annually, and that their average rating at present is only about 3s. 6d. in the £. As the Harbour is mainly kept up in the interests of the locality, the local authorities may fairly be expected to undertake this very small liability. In fact their reluctance to do so would seem to imply that in their opinion the harbour is unnecessary. I agree with my predecessor in the view that, in these circumstances, the Treasury would not be justified in making a free grant.

  FATAL ACCIDENTS INQUIRY ACT (SCOTLAND).
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, owing to the extra labour involved by the Fatal Accidents Inquiry Act, it is intended to appoint an additional sheriff substitute for Lanarkshire; and, if so, will he make it a condition of his appointment that he shall reside in Lanark, seeing that there is no sheriff resident in the Upper Ward?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: In reply to the question of my hon. Friend, I have to inform him that it is intended to appoint an additional sheriff substitute for Lanarkshire, and that the question of his place of residence is now under consideration.

  MEDITERRANEAN FLEET.
  MR. HERMON-HODGE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the latest information as to the health of the Mediterranean Fleet?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am glad to say that on the 13th of August the Commander-in-Chief telegraphed that the health of the squadron with him was perfectly satisfactory. ["Hear!"]

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION IN WALES.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council what is the present position of the scheme for the constitution of the Central Board of Intermediate Education in Wales, and whether it is possible to pass the scheme into law in the course of the present Session?
  SIR JOHN GORST: This scheme has been approved by the Committee of Council, and is now before Parliament. The Statute requires that it should lie on the Table of both Houses for two months in the same Session of Parliament, during which time an address may be presented by either House, praying Her Majesty to withhold her consent from all or part of the scheme. It is therefore impossible that the scheme can be approved by Her Majesty in Council during the present Session. ["Hear, hear!"]

  SECONDARY EDUCATION COMMISSION.
  MR. LEWIS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Report of the Royal Commission on Secondary Education will be laid upon the Table during the present Session?
  SIR JOHN GORST: The Report has been signed, and was sent to the Home Office on Saturday last for submission to the Queen. It will be laid upon the Table during the present Session, but copies cannot be in the hands of Members for a month, at least.

  BOER GOVERNMENT AND THE TRANSVAAL.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state what reply has been made by the Boer Government and Volksraad to a petition recently presented to them, signed by over 30,000 non-Boer residents of the Transvaal, asking for Constitutional rights?
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: We have no official information on the subject, but we understand from unofficial sources that the prayer of the petitioners was not granted.

  MARKING FOREIGN-MADE WATCHES.
  MR. CHARLES MURRAY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will specially direct his attention to the marking of foreign-made watches, so that the intention of the Merchandise Marks Act may be carried out, and purchasers may refer either to the dial or the dome for their information, and not obscure recesses of the watch?
  MR. RITCHIE: I shall be happy to give my attention to the subject referred to by the hon. Member; and if he can afford me information tending to show that the Act is being evaded I shall be glad to consider it most carefully.

  DULWICH ART GALLERY.
  DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can state the reason why the Dulwich Gallery is now closed on Sundays; and whether he can exercise any authority to have the Gallery re-opened on Sundays in future, so as to afford opportunities of visiting the Gallery to those who are unable from their avocations to visit it on week days?
  SIR JOHN GORST: I regret that I am unable to give the hon. Member any information on this subject, as the Dulwich Gallery is not under the control of the Committee of Council on Education.

  IRISH LAND LEGISLATION.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the undertaking of the Land Commission that judgments on fair rent applications listed after the 29th September next will be postponed until the proposed Land Bill has been passed next Session, applies as well to applications listed before the Civil Bill Courts as to applications before the Land Commission?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No; but I should be inclined to anticipate that the Civil Bill Courts would in this matter be disposed to follow the example
  386
  of the Land Commission. As the hon. and learned Member is aware, the number of such cases coming before the Civil Bill Courts is very small compared with those coming before the Land Commission. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking was to communicate with the County Court Judges on the matter as well as with the Judges of the High Court.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Certainly not.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why not?
  No answer was given to this question.

  QUARTER SESSIONS NOTICES.
  MR. H. C. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the case that while notices of Quarter Sessions are sent by the Clerks of the Peace to some Justices of the Peace, they are not sent to those who are Justices by virtue of being chairmen of District Councils; and, whether, if this be so, he will take steps to ensure that all Justices shall be treated alike in the issue of such notices?
  SIR M. W. RIDLEY: I have not received any complaints of failure on the part of Clerks of the Peace to send out Notices of Quarter Sessions to ex-officio Justices. Possibly in some cases omissions may have occurred through the Clerk of the Peace not being informed of the names and addresses of the ex-officio Justices. The notices should of course be sent to all Justices alike.
  MR. LUTTRELL: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I should like to ask whether it is not the business of the Clerk of the Peace to keep a record of all Justices, including those who are Justices or Chairmen of District Councils?
  SIR M. W. RIDLEY: I believe that to be the case.

  LICENSING LAW AMENDMENT.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government would be favourable to the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the Laws relating to the Licensing and Control of the Liquor Traffic with a view to their Amendment?
  THE FIRST LORD OP THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to the question of my hon. Friend I have to say that it is impossible that a Committee such as he suggests could be appointed during the present Session to do any effective work. The question, however, will of course be considered by the Government during the recess, and I shall be glad to give it my best attention.

  WANT OF EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE.
  MR. LEWIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to inform the House whether the Select Committee on Distress caused by Want of Employment will be reappointed in the course of the present Session?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board has, I believe, communicated with the Chairman of the Committee which sat last Session, the right hon. Gentleman for the Stirling Burghs (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman). He has not yet, however, received any reply. I am informed that the right hon. Gentleman is abroad, and therefore there has necessarily been some delay. I fear that if he is unable to serve it will be because some four or five Members of the Committee have been, by the fortune of war, excluded from our deliberations, and therefore there is no probability of any good result following from the reappointment of the Committee. I will consider the matter to the best of my ability. ["Hear, hear!"]

  INSANITARY CONDITION OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. HERMON-HODGE: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works a question of which I have not been able to give him private notice, namely, whether he is aware that during the earlier portion of the afternoon there was a most horrible smell from the drains near the Bar of the House, and whether he will inquire into the cause of it and endeavour to put a stop to a state of things which is not uncommon in this House, and which is very prejudicial to the health of hon. Members.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS Mr. (AKERS-DOUGLAS,: The hon. Member has not given me notice of the question, but I will make inquiries into the matter at once, and see what can be done. ("Hear, hear!")

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEasked whether the Leader of the House could take the Foreign Office vote first to-morrow, as it would be for the convenience of hon. Gentlemen, seeing that a good many questions would arise upon it.
  MR. J. DILLONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give the House some general statement as to the course of business, and would say when he proposed to take up the Irish Estimates.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think it would be inconvenient in some respects if the discussion on the Foreign Office Vote were delayed until a late hour. I will consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Vote shall be taken at an early hour, and I will communicate our decision on the point to him in the course of the evening, with the view to meet the convenience of hon. Members in all parts of the House. ("Hear, hear!") With regard to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Mayo, I can make no statement to him until we see what progress we are making in Supply.
  MR. DILLONasked whether it was proposed to take the Votes in the order in which they were set down on the Notice Paper for that day, or whether it was intended by the Government to make any further changes in the order of Supply. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It is the intention of the Government to take them in the order in which they appear on the Paper, but, as I said before, there is no iron arrangement.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would indicate whether he would sit that night till a late and uncertain hour. Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman was understood to say that the House should not sit till a late hour, yet it did so.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am aware that the hon. and learned Gentleman and I do not agree in viewing a "late and uncertain hour" in the same way. [Cheers.] I did not mean, and I did not think, yesterday, that we were going to sit so late as we were compelled to do, by circumstances well known to the hon. and learned Member himself. [Cheers and laughter]. I hope we may be able to make good progress to-night without again making such undue calls upon the health and energies of Members. ["Hear, hear!"]

  LIMERICK ELECTION (JOHN DALY).
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,),in rising to move—
  "That John Daly, returned as a Member for the City of Limerick, having been adjudged guilty of felony and sentenced to penal servitude for life, and being now imprisoned under such sentence, is incapable of being elected or returned as a Member of this House,"
  said that it was unnecessary to go back before 1870, because by the Treason-Felony Act of that year, section 2, it was provided that any person who after that date was convicted of felony and sentenced to penal servitude, should, until he had served his sentence or received a free pardon, be disqualified from holding any military office or from being returned as a Member to Parliament, or from sitting or voting therein. Hon. Members were perfectly well acquainted with the provisions of the section, and there was no doubt as to the course to be adopted. A similar state of circumstances arose in O'Donovan Rossa's case, when Mr. Gladstone brought forward a motion in the same terms as in the motion now before the House. The question arose again in the year 1875, when a similar motion was proposed by Mr. Disraeli; and again in 1882, when the motion was made by Sir H. James as Attorney General. He had, therefore, only to bring to the notice of the House the facts in regard to John Daly. On July 27, 1884, at the assizes at Warwick, John Daly was tried and convicted of treason-felony, and sentenced to penal servitude for life. This appeared from a paper which had been laid upon the Table of the House. Then there was a certificate from the
  390
  Governor of Portland Prison, which was also laid upon the Table of the House, showing that John Daly was now in his custody, undergoing his sentence. No question arose here except the carrying out of the law. By the law of the land, upon which he relied, and by the precedents of Parliament he submitted this motion. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. T. HARRINGTONsaid, he did not think that hon. Members would agree with the hon. Gentleman that this was quite so simple a matter as he tried to make them believe. In one sense the House had only to deal with the disqualification of a man returned at an election, but quite a different question arose as to the competency of the House and the right of the House to decide that question. It was quite true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had just quoted, that a person convicted of felony could not sit in that House. On the other hand, they had a statute passed by the House referring this question of disqualification, and the question of examining and inquiring into the return to a writ to a special legal tribunal, and the question was whether, the House having transferred by statute to a judicial tribunal this duty, it was competent for the House to again exercise that jurisdiction. If it was, where was it likely to lead them? He was aware that he was precluded by the forms of the House from raising any question of the policy of releasing a person who had been unanimously elected by the people of Limerick, but he would like to be permitted to say one word in defence of the attitude taken up by the electors of Limerick. John Daly was a citizen of their town, pretty well known to all shades of men.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman would not be in order in commenting on that. I have no doubt he would, as he proposes, deal shortly with it, but it would lead probably to answer and debate on a matter which is not relevant to the Motion. Therefore I must ask him not to enter into that topic.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid he did not intend to raise the question of amnesty and he bowed to the Speaker's ruling, but he thought it was competent on the Motion to disqualify a particular Member to show that he ought not to be disqualified.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have not said the contrary. If the hon. Member can show that he is by law not disqualified, it is competent to enter into that; but what the people of Limerick have done cannot affect the question. They have elected him; that is admitted, but the question is whether he was qualified by law.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid, that his object was to take exception to the procedure in the Motion made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he thought the time had come to place this question of disqualification of a Member returned for any constituency upon better and safer grounds than at present exist. He was aware, of course, the Motion made by the hon. Gentleman was not without precedent. They had had similar motions to that in the three last cases of the kind that had been examined by the House, but every time the Motion was made the same Amendment which he had now the honour to submit to the House, and in practically the same terms, had been made, and the question had turned mainly on the competency of the House, after having delegated to a judicial tribunal the duty of examining the return to a writ, to again take upon itself the duty of examining the writ and deciding upon it. The Election Petitions Act, 1868, chap. 68, sec. 50, enacted—
  "After the next Dissolution of Parliament no election or return shall be questioned except in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
  Everybody who had listened to the Motion made by the hon. and learned Gentleman knew perfectly well that in the Motion he had submitted he wanted the House to examine the return to a writ made by a constituency, and there was undoubtedly an assumption by the House of interference with the jurisdiction delegated by that Act to a judicial tribunal. There were two important facts to be considered in connection with the bearings of the section. In the first place the House had never, since the passing of the Act, at least in any case I have examined, interfered with the return to a writ except in those special cases of conviction for treason-felony.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERALpointed out that what the hon. and
  392
  learned Gentleman had been referring to as to the competency of the House was expressly decided by the House in the third case, the case of Mr. Davitt, whose name he had not intended mentioning. In that case it was decided that the House must interfere, and that it was not for the Election Judges to do so.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid, that his point was that precisely. A similar Amendment was made and the question was debated, and one of the authorities of the House, whom he would like to cite, was a right hon. Gentleman who gave it as his opinion that the House was entering upon a very dangerous precedent. ["Hear, hear."] The words of the right hon. Gentleman were—
  "There was great danger in acting as the Government proposed to do in the matter for this reason, that though the House had then on the Table the record of a conviction which showed that somebody in the year 1870 had bean convicted for treason-felony, there was no evidence of identity, or of the transactions which had taken place at the Election;"
  and the right hon. Gentleman opposed the Motion which was then made on behalf of the Government. If they were to have the right of a person to be returned by a constituency to sit in the House determined on Party lines, the question ought to be submitted to a Select Committee of the House, and there ought to be an authoritative decision upon it. It was curious that the House had never questioned the return for a writ since the passing of the Act of 1867, except with regard to cases of treason-felony and murder; but, more singularly still, the House had not consistently kept in its own hands the right of examining into the qualification. In the case of O'Donovan Rossa quite a new principle was introduced, because this was a case where there was no sentence of death, and where attainder did not follow. The House decided in that case, even after the Election Petition Act had been passed, that inasmuch as O'Donovan Rossa was still undergoing a term of imprisonment for treason, he was disqualified. But in the case of John Mitchell, which was debated in the House in 1875, a still further step was taken by the Government of the day; Mitchell was not confined at the time of his election; he had been sentenced to a

  393
  term of penal servitude, but had escaped from imprisonment, and it was contended that, not having purged the sentence, he was disqualified from sitting in the House. But even then some of the best legal authorities in the House questioned the action of the Government of the day, and an amendment similar to that which he had now the honour of submitting, opposing the Motion made on behalf of the Government of the day, was submitted by the Marquess of Hartington. On that occasion the Leader of the Opposition said, that, as he understood the matter until the case of O'Donovan Rossa, there was no authority for stating that any offence whatever, except one which was of a capital character, and upon which, of course, attainder followed, constituted a disability for a seat in the House. He was not disputing that the question of disqualification was settled by the statute, but he entirely denied the wisdom or right of that House, having delegated to a competent legal authority the question of examining the return for a writ, assuming the function which had thus been transferred to another tribunal. The passing of the Act of 1870, carrying with it the disqualification of particular persons, throw upon the tribunal they had established the right of examining into such matters. If the majority of the House decided practically that a person who was disqualified from taking his seat in the House should sit in the House, they would be going in the teeth of the statute. It was not creditable to that assembly that the qualification of its members should rest on such a shaky foundation. What was the tribunal which was to decide? In the case of John Mitchell the House disqualified him from sitting, and when the electors of Tipperary returned him a second time the House abandoned its functions and did not inquire at all into the matter. In face of such inconsistent action would the Attorney-General inform them what was the tribunal which really had to settle this question? Could a Sheriff on a nomination disqualify the person who was nominated because he was a felon? If so he thought a Select Committee should be appointed by the House to inquire into the matter and have it so determined. They had now three tribunals examining into the question;
  394
  the Sheriff might do so, the Election Judges might do so, and the House of Commons was taking upon itself in the present instance the duty of doing so. As the question stood at the present time, so far from the matter being simplified by the Act of 1870, if the House of Commons was to keep jurisdiction over it, its duty would become much more difficult than it was now. It was not creditable that a law regulating the qualification of the Members of that House should rest upon so doubtful a basis. He therefore moved to leave out all the words of the Motion after the word "that" in order to insert the following words:—
  "A Select Committee be appointed to examine into all the precedents as to the law of Parliament involved in the return of John Daly for the city of Limerick, and to Report to the House the steps that ought to be taken under the circumstances"
  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked the Speaker, on a point of Order, whether, if the Amendment was negatived, it would not then be impossible to move any further Amendment. If the House decided that the words of the Motion do stand part of the question, he apprehended that it would be incompetent for a Member to move any further Amendment, and he would therefore respectfully ask whether the question could not be put in another form?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that he was following the ordinary practice in the case of Resolutions when an Amendment was moved to substitute other words for those after the first word "that." What the hon. Gentleman referred to, was the practice in dealing with the clauses of a Bill; but in the case of an Amendment to the Second Reading of a Bill, or a Resolution, the Amendment was put in the way he had just adopted.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, the course taken by the Attorney-General, and the remarks he had made, showed that he had not taken any trouble to advise himself as to the course usually followed by Parliament in similar circumstances. This was evident from the absence from his Motion of the operative and peculiar pendant that "Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant for a new Writ." The course now followed was absolutely without precedent, and the Motion in its present

  395
  form could have no operative effect whatever. It was a nullity. The House had hitherto proceeded in a particular way in regard to these transactions, because a matter of privilege, affecting the status of a man who was alleged to be unworthy of a seat in the House, was involved. Take the case of the last Grand Master of the Orange Lodges, Mr. De Cobain, who was expelled from the House.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: He was never Grand Master of the Orange Lodges.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Grand Master in Ireland.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Never.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he was usually supposed to be, and boasted of being so. The treatment Mr. De Cobain received from the House was, in his opinion, illegal, and he protested and voted against it. The Motion in the case of Mr. De Cobain was one for expulsion, because he was an unworthy Member; and to go back to the days of Sadlier, and of other men expelled, the Motion was accompanied by the pendant that a new Writ be issued. In the case of Mr. Smith O'Brien, the Motion was made on the ground that he was attainted of felony, and his election was, therefore, held to be void. That case was followed by that of O'Donovan Rossa, but the Act of 1870 had not been passed when he was elected. The Motion in that case, as in that of John Mitchel, was of a different character, but it was followed by the pendant that a new Writ should issue. Then came the case of Mr. Michael Davitt, and the form pursued in that case was now followed by the Attorney-General with slavish ignorance. The Motion declared that Mr. Davitt "is" incapable—for the Act of 1870 had not passed, and Mr. Davitt could not be declared "was" incapable by Statute at the time of election. But Mr. Daly was elected after the passing of the Act of 1870, and the precedent of Mr. Davitt did not apply to the present case. It was clear that the Motion should be that Mr. John Daly "was" incapable, and the Motion was necessarily inoperative unless followed by Motion to issue a new Writ. Here was a Motion for the first time founded on the Statute of 1870, but the Motion read "is incapable." Further, there was a serious variance between the Return and the Motion. Mr. John Daly
  396
  was convicted of "treason felony," but the Motion before the House declared the crime to be "felony." ["Oh, oh!"] The right hon. Gentleman, who was so anxious at the time of the Parnell Commission to get John Daly's evidence that he sent Mr. Soames on a special mission to get it, might have observed ordinary courtesy in speaking of Mr. Daly. He would call him the hon. Member for Limerick, and he thought they ought to give him the courtesy which his election to Parliament deserved. John Daly was not convicted of an offence against the ordinary law—[cries of "Oh!"]—but he was imprisoned for an offence against the Act of 1848—the Treason Felony Act—and at least he was entitled to a true description of his offence, and should not be classed as a felon with burglars, garotters, and wife-beaters. The record, as far as he knew—for he had not a copy—described the offence as "treason felony."
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERALhere handed across the floor to Mr. T. M. Healy a copy of the record.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he found the document rather lengthy, and he would not read it. In 1882, it was ruled by the then Speaker that it would not be in order to discuss the merits of the case on such a Motion, but suppose an Amendment were moved to the effect that John Daly be expelled and that a new Writ should issue, then the whole circumstances of the conviction could be discussed, together with the question whether he was or was not entitled to clemency. The question before the House was not one of simple legality as the Attorney-General had presented it, but was one of privilege. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the law was settled by the cases of Mr. Davitt and of Smith O'Brien. As a matter of fact, all that was settled by those cases was a particular kind of procedure, which procedure the hon. and learned Gentleman had not followed, because he had omitted the Motion for issuing the Writ. The Attorney-General had declared that the Government were bound by the Statute of 1870. He could not accept that view, for anyone who gave attention to the Statute must come to the conclusion that it was an Act for operation in a Court of Law. That House did not pass Statutes about its

  397
  procedure; it passed Rules and Standing Orders. There was no Statute to regulate the Procedure in the case of Mr. John Daly, just as there was none to regulate the procedure in the case of Mr. De Cobain. The condition in the Statute was that a man must be sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment or more, but Mr. De Cobain was expelled from the House simply because a warrant had been issued against him. Therefore expulsion from the House did not depend upon the contents of the Statute, and this Resolution ought not to have been founded upon it. Mr. De Cobain, as a matter of fact, never did get twelve months' imprisonment, but was let off with six months. The precedent set in the case of Mr. De Cobain ought to have been followed. Mr. De Cobain was expelled from the House before conviction. [The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: "He was never tried."] The hon. and learned Member was mistaken, but as it was an Irish case that was not to be wondered at.
  MR. PARKER SMITHasked whether the hon. Member was in order in discussing the case of Mr. De Cobain.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that it was in order for the hon. Member to attempt to show that there was a parallel case to the one under consideration. The question of the weight to be attached to the parallel was not a matter of order.
  MR. T. M. HEALYobserved that it was a matter for the jury. The Motion before the House would have no effect on the legal status of Mr. John Daly, whose disability existed now. What would affect him and the electors of Limerick was the issue of a new Writ, and to that point the hon. and learned Gentleman had not addressed himself. In previous cases a Motion for the issue of a new Writ had, he believed, always been made. Where now was the Motion for the issue of the Writ? In 1882, Sir Henry James put down a Motion for the issue of a Writ. Mr. Gladstone, in 1870, moved his Motion in regard to O'Donovan Rossa, and put down a Motion for the issue of a Writ. In Mitchell's case, Mr. Disraeli also put down a Motion for the issue of a Writ. It was left for the present Tory Party, which founded itself upon
  398
  precedents, to omit this Motion. He submitted that they were entitled to have some light thrown upon this matter. At the time of Mr. Davitt's Election for Meath, in 1882, another gentleman had been nominated with him, and Sir Charles Lewis, then Conservative Member for Derry, drew attention to the fact in the House of Commons. In consequence of his arguments, which were endorsed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Sir E. Clarke), Sir Henry James declared that as it was within the bounds of possibility that the gentleman nominated with Mr. Davitt might proceed to a Petition, he would allow the time within which a petition must be presented to elapse before moving for the issue of a Writ, and that time was allowed to elapse. Now, together with Mr. Daly, Mr. Francis O'Keefe, a former Member of this House, was nominated for Limerick. Was it not also within the bounds of possibility that Mr. O'Keefe might proceed to a Petition, and therefore ought not the precedent set by Sir Henry James to be followed? Neither the Attorney-General for England, nor the Attorney-General for Ireland, whose presence in that House every Irish lawyer must welcome, had said one word upon this important point. The fact was that the Government had not approached this subject with sufficient learning and research. It was unfortunate for the interests of House of Commons procedure that these questions involving privilege were generally considered in connection with the case of some Irish Member. When this House dealt with Irish Members, it was a case of "short shrift and a short rope." If they were now dealing with the case of the humblest Englishman, or with the smallest English question, the Law Officers of the Crown would not hesitate to devote hours to the consideration of the matter, and to treat it as of the highest constitutional gravity and importance. He deplored, as a Member of Parliament, the rather superficial way in which the Attorney General had addressed himself to this subject. He hoped that in the future, when the hon. and learned Gentleman had to deal with grave matters of this kind he would condescend to give the House a

  399
  fuller exposition of its practice and of the law than he had done on the present occasion.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERALsaid, it would probably be for the convenience of the House he should say a word at the present stage. It was not the first time that the hon. and learned Member for Louth had criticised both his conduct and his knowledge of law.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Never the hon. and learned Gentleman's knowledge of law; merely his conduct.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERALwent on to say that he would lay to heart the strictures of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and endeavour to profit by the advice he had given. Now, the point raised was that this matter ought to be left to an Election Judge. That was a question which had been already argued out. It was the subject of formal discussion in connection with Mr. Davitt's case in 1882, which was, as he had already stated, after the Election Petition Act was passed; there was in fact no case for a petition, but it was the right and duty of this House to declare that the return made to the Writ was no return at all. Therefore, although the hon. Gentleman was quite within his right in bringing forward this Amendment, there was no reason at all why the House should adopt the course of directing an inquiry which could lead to but one result. There could be no doubt at all that Mr. John Daly was convicted of treason felony, and that he was now suffering the sentence for which he was convicted. That fact was matter of common knowledge, and an inquiry in these circumstances would serve no reasonable purpose, and would be a useless waste of time. The hon. and learned Member for Louth had in the course of his observations been very severe on him for not moving that the Writ should issue. That, however, was not a matter for one occupying the position of Attorney General. Anybody might put that Motion down. Nobody knew better than the hon. and learned Member the rivalries that existed in days gone by with regard to who should make the Motion for the issue of Writs. There might be rivalry in some parts or sections of the House as to who should make the Motion. It did not appear to the Government that it was a question for them, though it was their duty to
  400
  see that no unreasonable delay took place.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman contend that Daly could not be a Member of this House up to the moment when the Writ was issued?
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERALreplied that in his opinion Daly could not be a Member of this House, and was not a Member of this House at the present time. ["Hear, hear!"] It was an absolute absurdity to suggest that this House was not bound by the law of the land. It could no more declare that John Daly was a Member of the House and was entitled to come here, than it could allow a woman or child to enter its walls as a Member of Parliament. He was distinctly of opinion that John Daly was not at this moment a Member, and could not be allowed to fulfil any of the functions or enjoy any of the privileges of a Member of this House. He was sure the learned Member would acquit him of any want of courtesy if he did not dwell upon the hon. Member's personal aspersions upon himself. He would lay them to heart, having sufficiently dealt with the various points raised by the hon. and learned Member.
  MR. CLANCYsaid, that by Act of Parliament passed in 1868, it was declared that after the next Dissolution of Parliament, no election or return should be questioned except in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the manner in which such election or return was to be questioned was by petition. No more sweeping pronouncement could be conceived than was contained in that section. The answer of the learned Attorney-General that this matter had been argued out before was no answer at all. On the contrary, the fact that the question had been argued before in the House suggested that there was a question and a serious question to argue. In truth, this matter could not be settled in a satisfactory mariner except by a Select Committee or some other tribunal which would take upon itself the investigation of all the precedents and facts. The House had committed illegalities before in such matters as these. Some 120 years ago, John Wilkes was returned to this House. He was returned more than once, and was more than once expelled from the

  401
  House, and on one occasion his election was declare null and void, and not only so, but the House declared another person, who had only a minority of votes, entitled to take the seat. A few years afterwards, in 1782, a Resolution was passed by the House of Commons, declaring all its previous action illegal, and Lord Campden, in the House of Lords, stated that the action taken in regard to Wilkes had inflicted a greater wound on the Constitution than anything done during the whole reign of Charles I. The House of Commons might pass a Resolution expelling a Member, or declare that a particular person was unfit to sit in this House, but he submitted with great deference that the House of Commons could not make a law and could not create a disqualification which did not exist, and could not prescribe any way of avoiding an election, except that which the law had laid down. Now, in 1868, Parliament undoubtedly laid down the law in regard to this matter, as he had stated it—namely, that this House could not proceed to disqualify a candidate or declare an election void, except by way of petition. There was one further argument in support of the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend and, it was this: A Return had been presented to the House of the conviction of a person named John Daly, and also a second return from the Governor of Portland prison declaring that a John Daly was now a prisoner in that place. The Attorney-General smiled at the suggestion that there was not sufficient indentification. Last Session the Earl of Selborne died. Everybody knew that Viscount Wolmer had succeeded to his father's title and position in the House of Lords, but the House of Commons did not proceed to take action without inquiry. Everybody knew that the gentleman who was then Earl of Selborne was sitting in the House of Commons; there was not a single human being in England who did not feel morally convinced that there was a person sitting in the one House who ought to be in the other. What was done? The late Chancellor of the Exchequer took the very course that was suggested by his hon. and learned Friend now, and moved for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire whether the Earl of Selborne had died, and whether his
  402
  eldest son had succeeded to the title, and should therefore take his place in the House of Lords, although Viscount Wolmer himself declared that he was his father's eldest son, and that his father was dead. There was another illustration afforded only a few days ago. That was the return of the two Writs for Monaghan, in which an error had been made as to the name of the hon. Member, in each case the gentleman who had been returned for the one division having had his name inserted in the Writ relating to the other division and vice versâ. Everybody knew that one hon. Member had been returned for North Monaghan and the other for South Monaghan, but the House was not satisfied, and actually went to the trouble of summoning from Ireland the Clerk of the Crown, commanding him to take a walk up the floor of the House and to alter the Writs in the presence of Mr. Speaker. Nor was this all. The two hon. Members were called upon to name the Divisions for which they had been returned, but the House would not believe even the two Members themselves, and another colleague had to get up in his place to corroborate their statement. On the ground that there was no proof of identification, and also on the further ground that they ought to settle this matter once and for all, he ventured to submit that the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend ought to be accepted.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY, remarked that the Attorney-General had himself demonstrated the futility of the Motion he had moved. He had told them that John Daly was not a Member of this House, therefore, the Motion did not either make a new law nor did it enforce the existing Law. If there was any doubt, and the hon. and learned Gentleman considered that the House of Commons should express its opinion as to what the law was, such a Motion might be made. But the Attorney-General was emphatic in his statement that the law was clear and that no declaration was required. On the other hand, the law being clear, if the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Government had desired to enforce the law, then his conduct would have been intelligible and his Motion would have been understood, because it

  403
  might have been said it was the business of the House not to declare the law, but to enforce it. But the hon. and learned Gentleman did not contend that there was any necessity to declare the law, and did not take upon himself the duty of enforcing it, therefore, the Motion was a mere nullity having no effect, either legal or otherwise, and he was completely at a loss to know why the hon. and learned Gentleman had moved it. But there was both a question of law and of fact involved. The question of fact was the identity of the person referred to in the Motion, and the hon. and learned Gentleman asked them to decide that without any evidence whatever. Before the House was called upon to resolve any question of fact, the practice of the House had been to require that evidence of the most complete character should be given. In addition to the question of fact, which they were asked to solve without evidence, the Attorney-General had also asked them to declare their opinion on the question of law. The hon. and learned Gentleman thought the law was perfectly plain, but that was not so clear. That House had no power to make law, and if it passed twenty resolutions declaring the law was in a particular manner it would be perfectly open to any Member to get up and say that was not the law. The laws could only be made by the Queen, Lords and Commons. The tribunal to establish the law in this case should not be the House of Commons, but the Judges of the land. In the Bradlaugh case the House of Commons came to a certain conclusion, and the Courts of Law held that the law laid down by that House was bad and the opinion the House expressed was erroneous. Not only was the Resolution absolutely futile in itself, but it involved the dangerous practice of that House taking upon itself to discharge a duty for which it was not competent, and which the law had not imposed upon it, namely, the duty of deciding what the law was. It would be an absolute nullity to pass the Motion; it would neither make a new nor enforce the existing law. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not ask them to proceed to the expulsion of a Member; his case was that the seat for Limerick was already vacant, and that being so, they were engaged in a futile and useless
  404
  discussion of a Motion which should not have been made.
  MR. C. J. DARLINGremarked that we might almost hope the Attorney-General would yield to the appeal made to him from the other side of the House, and as he had not seen fit to move that a Writ should issue for the election of someone else as Member for Limerick, he would simply leave the matter where it stood. It appeared to him that Limerick, if it was represented, was represented in a way that must commend itself to everyone on the Government Benches. He had not the least doubt that the opinion of the constituency was very well represented, and that at all events the electors of Limerick had done something to reduce the over-representation of Ireland, which had so often been complained of by the Unionist Party.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I rise to a point of Order.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not out of order.
  MR. DARLING: I have said all I desire to say, sir.
  Question put: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 261; Noes, 85.—(Division List No. 15.)
  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 256; Noes, 74.—(Division List No. 16.)
  Resolved: That John Daly, returned as a Member for the City of Limerick, having been adjudged guilty of felony and sentenced to penal servitude for life, and being now imprisoned under such sentence, is incapable of being elected or returned as a Member of this House.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the Leader of the House how long he will allow this place to remain without moving a new writ?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I should have thought that the Motion for a new writ rested rather with the Party to which the disqualified person belonged.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Do I understand that the Government make no Motion?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Not to-day.

  CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
  On the Order for going into Committee of Supply being read by the Clerk at the Table,
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY rose and said: I beg to move that Mr. James William Lowther do take the Chair. [Cheers.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHERwas cheered by the Ministerialists on taking the Chair for the first time as Chairman of Committees.

CIVIL, SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, l895–6.

  CLASS I.
  On the Vote of £119,210, to complete the sum for Surveys of the United Kingdom,
  MR. T. M. HEALYcommended the Ordnance Survey, but complained that, in the case of Ireland, the 25-inch map was not to be completed till the year 1918—probably rather longer than many hon. Members present would care to look forward to; whereas, in the case of England, it would be completed in 1910; while the Scotch counties would have their map completed in 1897. He could not sit down without expressing his thanks to the Ordnance Survey Department in Ireland for the manner in which they acted in the right-of-way case at Sutton. ["Hear, hear!"] They came in for some censure from the gentlemen whose property was affected; but a debt of thanks was due
  406
  to the Surveyors for showing on the public map the spots where a right-of-way existed. He thought it would be extremely important that the Ordnance Survey should show the rights-of-way wherever they existed, because this would be a record for all time that those ways existed. One other suggestion was that, as these surveys could not now be introduced in a Court of Law as evidence on any point, an Act should be passed making these maps primâ facie evidence. In the Land Commission Court and the Land Judges' Courts in Ireland these surveys were accepted as primâ facie evidence. He would not go the length of making them absolute evidence, but they should, he thought, be made primâ facie evidence, and be available as such, for suitors in any Court of Law. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. CLANCYwas proceeding to call attention to a grievance of the workmen in the Ordnance Survey Department in Dublin in regard to holidays, when the hon. Member said that he found this did not arise upon the present Vote, and resumed his seat.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISinquired what steps had been taken by the Board of Agriculture to carry out the Report of the Departmental Committee, which pointed out that the absence of Welsh-speaking officers from each of the Survey parties in Wales had led to mistakes of various kinds. He wished to know what steps had been taken to improve on that state of things. As far as he could ascertain, no Welsh officer accompanied any of the survey parties in Wales, and the consequence was that the names appeared on the map in an incorrect form. Wales was in the position of a foreign country in regard to language, and no survey would be attempted in a foreign country without the presence of a person acquainted with the local language. He hoped, not only in regard to Ireland, but in regard to this country, the survey parties would receive specific instructions to mark on every public map every public right of way which appeared to exist. A large number of roads and footpaths had been closed, and when this step was once taken the public were practically shut out from their use, for ever.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANANsaid, that in Scotland there was a society which had done more for the maintenance of rights of way during the past ten or twelve years than any other body in the country. The society had had under consideration on several occasions the question of rights of way on the Ordnance Survey maps, and they came to the conclusion that in Scotland at least they would not like to be limited by the number of rights of way laid down at present on the maps, because it was felt that the authorities were not sufficiently accurate in laying down all the rights of way. He joined with previous speakers, however, in urging that in the revisions of the maps the surveyors should be directed to be as careful and as particular as possible in laying down the rights of way on the maps. Three or four years ago the society in Scotland applied to the Ordnance Survey Department, asking to be furnished, for the purpose of their work, with copies of the Ordnance Survey maps in Scotland, but the society was unable to obtain what they wished. He urged that the Department ought to be a little more liberal in the distribution of the maps among public bodies.
  DR. KENNYasked for some declaration as to the intentions of the Government in establishing a Board of Agriculture in Ireland. In England the Board of Agriculture had been of great benefit to the agricultural interest, and there appeared to be no reason why a similar board should not be established in Ireland He also joined with his hon. Friends in pressing the importance of rights of way being mentioned on the maps, though the absence to mark a right of way would not, of course, be conclusive evidence that such a right of way did not exist. He called attention to the necessity of also including foreshore rights, mentioning a case of grievous hardship in County Dublin, wherein a railway company deprived the whole community of certain rights of taking sand and gravel. The employÉs of the Ordnance Department were not in as good a position with regard to pension and retiring allowances as servants were in some other public Departments. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would look into the matter.
  MR. T. LOUGHsaid, it was exceedingly difficult to get ordnance maps, especially in country villages where they were much required. He believed it was impossible to get them anywhere in Ireland except in Dublin, Belfast and Cork. In France, on the other hand, such maps could be got without difficulty, and he suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should enter into negotiations with the Post Office, to see whether it would not be possible for ordnance maps to be supplied at the post offices throughout the country, especially in out-of-the-way districts. Then the price at which they were sold was much dearer here than in other countries. In Franco maps could be obtained for 4½d., and he submitted that this country ought not to be outdone in this matter of price. The reform he had suggested would be greatly appreciated throughout the country.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYurged the importance of ordnance maps in litigation between landlord and tenant in the Land Courts in Ireland. Facilities should therefore be given to increase their distribution and sale, thereby conferring a great benefit on all classes in Ireland. He also called attention in the interests of history and geography, to the fact that the spelling of Irish names on these maps was at present grotesque and misleading, and he urged that the compilers should at least have competent assistance to obviate errors in this respect.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,), said, he entirely appreciated the importance of the fact that the survey in Ireland was in a less favourable position, than the survey in other parts of the country. He, however, had only been in his present office a very short time, and it would be indecent for him to criticise the work that had been done by the department and by his predecessors. At the same time, he was impressed with the desirability of quickening the survey so that the public might have a valuable map easily obtainable at a moderate price—["Hear, hear!"]—of the locality over which they travel, or in which they reside. If he could in any way expedite the survey

  409
  he should be glad to do it. With regard to the survey now going on in Great Britain, there was a prospect of the work being completed at a very early date, and when that was done the money which now had to be spent under that head would be available for allotment to other survey work. The whole question was one of expense. The Treasury would, naturally, resist any attempt to increase the expenditure, unless there was a clear expression of opinion on the part of the House that the expenditure was necessary in the public interest. He hoped he might be able to quicken the survey in Ireland by devoting to it a portion of the expenditure which was about to fall in, or by some re-arrangement to which he should give careful attention. With reference to the suggestion that the maps should be made legal evidence that was a matter which did not fall within his province, but he could mention the subject, which was, no doubt, important, to the Attorney General. Considering the heavy expense and the value of these maps they could not attach too much importance to them. As to footpaths, they were in almost all cases produced on the maps, but mere temporary footways made by men on the way to work for a time were not shown, as after the work was finished the paths disappeared. He should see that this matter received proper attention. The hon. Member for Flint referred to the difficulty of Welsh names. Maps of Wales issued subsequent to 1893 had been submitted to Welsh scholars for revision and correction before publication. An hon. Member had made a similar complaint with regard to Ireland, but there the difficulty was not so great as there was no such curious admixture of letters in Irish names as they met with in Welsh names. If a name appeared on the map wrongly spelt there was a danger that the old name would be lost, which was not a desirable thing. It was suggested that a Welsh-speaking person should go with the survey, and he should consider whether this system could not be adopted in Ireland as well. [An hon. MEMBER: "And in the Highlands?"] Yes, and in the Highlands. An assistant speaking Welsh and accompanying the survey could satisfy himself of the accuracy of
  410
  the names, and, no doubt, this would meet the requirements of the hon. Member.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid, he had no objection to the present arrangement of Welsh scholars looking over the maps, but what was recommended by the Departmental Committee was, that the survey party should be accompanied by a person speaking Welsh. That had not yet been carried out. He asked whether that suggestion, which he regarded as most important, would be carried out.
  MR. LONGsaid, that with regard to Welsh and Irish names, their object was to produce as accurate a map as they could, and if the change suggested could be carried out, he would see that it was done. With regard to a Board of Agriculture in Ireland, that was not in his province, and did not fall within the Vote. Legislation would be required. With regard to foreshores, that also was not a matter that he could deal with, but he should bear it in mind. The hon. Member for West Islington referred to the difficulty of getting these maps in different parts of the country, and in the villages especially, and he made the suggestion that the Post Offices should keep these maps. With regard to the cheapening of the cost of the map, efforts had already been made in that direction, and the difficulty was that the cheapening of the price of the map had not resulted in the increased demand for it which alone would justify it.
  MR. LOUGH: What is the lowest price?
  MR. LONGsaid he was afraid he could not say offhand. If the cheapening were accompanied by an organised diffusion, a market might be gained; but unless something could be done in that way, the cheapening could not be carried out. He did not know whether there was any other point to which he ought to have made a reply, but he would be glad to give any further information in his power. His great desire was to take care that the Survey-Department should do its work efficiently. On the whole he thought the Department did its work admirably, and was admitted universally to be superior to that of any other country.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that questions of foreshore and rights of way were entirely outside the province

  411
  of the hydrographer. He could not decide legal rights and it would be quite impossible to give any legal authority to the maps. The survey appeared to cost over £200,000 a year and the appropriations in aid came to about £6,000, or just about the cost of the paper and ink used in the preparation of the maps. He could not find any appropriation in aid in respect of the sum received for the sale of the maps, except that to the Irish Land Commissioner, about £4,000; and he would like to know where the proceeds were accounted for and what were the arrangements made for the sale of the maps. Did Her Majesty's Government receive the proceeds or did someone else? If Her Majesty's Government received them, where were they accounted for? Was there anything in the nature of a monopoly which limited the sale? He would be glad to know what were the arrangements under which the very large sale of those maps was carried out?
  CAPTAIN BETHELLcalled attention to the fact that in making the survey no notice was taken of the erosion of the coast by the sea which took place, very much on the East Coast. He suggested that from time to time marks might be placed along the coast in order that the erosion of the shore might be properly marked.
  MR. LONGsaid, there was no doubt a difficulty with regard to the sale of the maps in consequence of there being only one agent. It had been suggested that the system should be altered when the contract expired, but it did not expire for rather more than a year. The Department had at the present time under consideration a proposal by which that difficulty would be obviated. With regard to the proceeds of sale his hon. Friend would find at the bottom of page 52 a note to the effect that—
  "The proceeds of the sale of maps, estimated to amount to £14,000 for the year 1895–6, are appropriated in aid of the vote for stationery and printing."
  With regard to the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Holderness, he could only say that he must be governed by the amount given to him,
  412
  and unless that amount was increased it would be impossible to increase the expenditure. At the same time they would do all they could to produce a good and efficient map.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLsaid, it was merely a question of putting up marks.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that the sum of £4,000 received from the Land Court in Ireland was appropriated in aid of this Vote, but the larger sum of £14,000 for England was put into the Stationery Vote. Surely that was very inconvenient. It seemed to him that one rule should be followed. Why should the Stationery Department have the proceeds of the sale of maps?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,), said that a question was put by the hon. Member for North Louth, with regard to the votes generally. He should certainly do everything he could to make the votes as intelligible as possible to the House. There were already footnotes to each vote to show how far the particular service was met by the vote. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, the present Estimates were not prepared by the present Government, and he was not quite sure on what principle the proceeds of sale were in some cases credited to this Vote, and in others to the Stationery Vote. The hon. Member for the Northern Division of the County of Dublin, complained of the insufficiency of the holiday allowed to labourers in the Phœnix Park. The hon. Gentleman assumed that they were employed by the Board of Works, but, if that was so, the question did not arise on this Vote. It was complained also that the assistants employed in the Ordnance Survey were not treated in the same way as regarded pensions as those regularly employed. That policy was considered in 1870, and it was found that the system of having permanent assistants was not a good one. Their salaries and wages were based entirely on the idea that they were not earning a pension, and were higher in proportion than they would be if pension rights were attached. The suggestion that the ordnance maps should be sold at post offices appeared to be one for consideration when the arrangements for sale, of these maps was under Division B. But many of the sub-postmasters in the

  413
  country received small pay, and they might be unwilling to undertake that extra duty without extra remuneration.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEwished to recur to the point raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, namely, that the agency for the sale of ordnance maps was a monopoly. He should like to know whether there was any stipulation in the contract as to the prices that should be charged to the public for copies of the maps. As to the sale of them by local postmasters, they might charge the same commissions local booksellers charged, but it would not make any material addition to their incomes, as so few maps would be required. But besides having permission to sell maps, local postmasters might be required to keep for reference maps for the area served by each post-office, making a small charge to each person requiring to consult them. The tithe commutation maps could be examined for a shilling, but that was too high a fee to charge for referring to maps the sheets of which could be bought at 2s. 6d. each. Accuracy in the spelling of Welsh names could not be secured by simply submitting them to Welsh scholars, who, in many cases could not have the necessary local knowledge; and, therefore, he asked the President of the Board of Agriculture to acquiesce in the suggestion that each company of surveyors should be accompanied by a Welsh-speaking officer, so that the spelling of local names might be assured by communication with local residents. It was impossible that Englishmen could properly set down Welsh names on official maps, and it was of the highest importance that they should be accurate, seeing that they were accepted as primá facie evidence in Courts of Justice.
  MR. LONGsaid, he had already stated, in answer to the hon. Member for King's Lynn, that at present there was only one agent in England for the sale of ordnance maps. There was a second in Edinburgh, and a third in Dublin. When a Departmental Committee inquired into the question they reported that there was not sufficient evidence to justify an alteration of the existing system until the contracts expired, as he believed they would do next year.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Will it expire for Ireland next year?
  MR. LONGcould not say offhand, but he believed it would do so; and the Department had under consideration the possibility of improving the system by having more than one agent. He would consider the suggestion that the surveyors in Wales should be accompanied by Welsh-speaking officers, but it could not be determined upon without consulting the head of the Department, and ascertaining what the expense would be.
  DR. CLARKsaid, he hoped that when the Secretary to the Treasury next submitted Estimates he would frame them on some plan which would make it possible to understand them. Some years ago, when the new system of Appropriation Accounts was introduced by the then Conservative Government, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India in the late Government strongly opposed the new system as a constitutional innovation. But, in spite of the indignation then manifested by Front Bench men, they had adopted the system they so strongly opposed; and now we, had another muddle which made it impossible to understand this Vote. The Stationery Office supplied a certain number of things to the Survey Department and took credit for them. The Survey Department bought special papers, inks and instruments for map-making. He was astonished that the late Goverment, after protesting so strongly against this system, which made it almost impossible to compare the expenditure of one year with that of another, should in their last Estimates so far muddle and confuse matters. Whilst all other public departments obtained maps free, the Irish Land Court was charged £4,000 for them. The Admiralty accounts and the Stationery accounts were muddled by the transactions between them; and it was altogether as glorious a muddle as it could be. He hoped that, now the Liberal Leaders had given up their strong opinions with regard to the unconstitutional character of these Appropriation Accounts, and the House was practically agreed they should be continued, steps would be taken to improve the Estimates so as to let the Committee know in every case what it was they were asked to vote, and so enable them to

  415
  compare one year with another, which it was impossible to do at present. The Secretary to the Treasury had been a keen critic on both sides of the House; all these were old stories to him; and it was to be hoped he would present the next Estimates in such a form that they could be comprehended, understood, and made the basis of comparison.
  Mr. LOUGHsaid, that with regard to the ten years' printing contracts, he wished to make a suggestion to the Secretary to the Treasury. He believed the contracts expired at the end of 1896. A Committee would be appointed early next year to consider matters connected with these contracts, and especially those ten years' contracts to which general distaste had arisen. He suggested that the Committee might inquire into the distribution of ordnance maps, and make suggestions on that subject too. The Committee would provide very convenient machinery for securing the benefits which the present and former Secretary to the Treasury sought to secure. His own suggestion about the sale of maps at post offices while kindly received generally had met with some objection. The new Secretary to the Treasury had soon become imbued with the bad traditions of his office, and had spoiled all the friendliness of his predecessor's attitude on the subject. He had dragged in the question of cost, which was what the Treasury were always dragging in. They pursued "a penny wise and pound foolish" policy. The distribution of ordnance maps by the post offices would not only cost nothing but be a source of revenue. A small commission would encourage the postal officials to sell them. This commission would be taken into account in fixing their salaries, and economy would be effected. With regard, however, to the exhibition of maps in post offices for the purpose of reference, he thought it better that they should be exhibited in public libraries or other local institutions.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEreminded the hon. Member that parish maps were already on view at country post offices. If ordnance maps were exhibited at country post offices no inconvenience would arise; on the contrary, they would have the effect of attracting custom. He thought the suggestion that they should
  416
  be exhibited at post offices was reasonable and moderate.
  MR. J. HERBERT ROBERTSacknowledged the sympathetic spirit the President of the Board of Agriculture had shown as to the appointment of Welsh-speaking inspectors in connection with the Board in Wales. This was a subject in which the greatest interest was taken in Wales. The Welsh language was not difficult to learn, and was the most musical language in the world. He contended that those who were engaged in the preparation of ordnance maps for Wales should have a thorough knowledge of the Welsh language.
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Vote of £12,240 to complete the sum for Harbours in the United Kingdom and Lighthouses abroad under the Board of Trade,
  DR. CLARKreferred to the maintenance of Holy head harbour, and thought it should be left to the London and North-Western Railway Company, for whose benefit, chiefly, it existed. At present the Company received a small subsidy from the Government towards the maintenance of the harbour. But if the Company maintained the harbour, they would maintain it and do so more cheaply. He understood that the Company were willing to buy or rent the harbour. If they were they should be allowed to do so. The maintenance of the pier and harbour this year cost £1,150, but year after year £3,000 was asked for to repair and maintain the old wooden pier. What purpose did the pier serve that the taxpayers of the country should have to pay £3,000 a year for it. A better arrangement should be made, too, for the payment of the salary of the harbour master. He wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hanbury, Preston) to these points, and to ascertain from him what the views of the new Government were with regard to them; and whether the Government were prepared to give the Committee any information in relation to them.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought that there was a good deal in the point

  417
  which had been made by the hon. Member who had just spoken, that the Government were spending some £7,000 a year on Holyhead Harbour for the benefit of the passenger traffic of the London and North Western Railway Company. The money which the harbour had cost to construct ought to have come out of the capital of the Company. It could not be just that the Government should spend all this money every year for the benefit of a railway company, when not a single harbour of refuge existed on the whole of the Welsh coast for the protection of the fishermen. He could not understand why this large annual payment should be made for the maintenance of a rotten wooden pier. He hoped that the right, hon. Gentleman would agree to send an engineer belonging to the Harbour Department to investigate the matter upon the spot.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,)said, that of course hon. Members would understand that he had some difficulty in answering these questions, seeing that he had taken office so recently, and that he had not been in the last Parliament, while those hon. Members who took an interest in these subjects had doubtless paid some attention to them. The hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) and the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Lloyd-George) had referred to Holyhead Harbour, which they maintained was kept up at the expense of the country for the benefit of the passenger traffic of the London and North Western Railway Company. He understood that the railway company paid a substantial rent for the use of the harbour, and the harbour must be kept up, even, if the company did not use it. With regard to the cost of maintaining the wooden pier, he himself thought that it might be advisable to replace that pier by a permanent structure. As to the case of the harbour master, it was said that he received a salary of £350 per annum in addition to a pension of £370. He must point out, however, that the harbour master had very important duties to perform, and that he had earned his pension by long service in the Navy. He was satisfied that hon. Members would not desire that the harbour
  418
  master should be deprived of his well-earned pension. He had no doubt that if there had been anything improper in the transaction, the eagle eye of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hanbury) would have been directed to it, and that he would have called attention to it.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had called attention to the matter.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that most likely the right hon. Gentleman had had further opportunities of inquiring into the question since he had taken office.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that he did not think that it was fair that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade should have been put up to answer these questions, seeing that it was impossible that he could give the Committee any information with regard to them. He declined to believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, was going to change his views with regard to this harbour master now he had got into office. He was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the views he had professed on the subject when he was out of office. In all sincerity he maintained that the right hon. Gentleman was bound, now he was in office, to do his best to get rid of an abuse which he had previously denounced when out of office, and he believed that the right hon. Gentleman would do so. He therefore suggested that the matter should be left in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, who would doubtless give it his attention during the autumn recess and be prepared to deal with it next Session. He however could not accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that the right hon. Gentleman, now he had attained office, was justified in setting aside the views he had entertained on the subject when he was out of office.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that he certainly sympathised with the observations of the hon. Member who had just sat down. The right hon. gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had volunteered the somewhat important statement that the London and North Western Railway

  419
  Company paid a substantial rent for the use of Holyhead Harbour. He found that that harbour had cost no less a sum than £1,300,000, and therefore a substantial rent upon such an expenditure ought to amount to some thousands a year. On looking through the Estimates, he could only find, under the head of "Appropriation in Aid," that a sum of £2,500 per annum was received for harbour dues, which certainly was not rent, and therefore he assumed that the rent paid by the Company did not appear under that head. He should like to know where the right hon. Gentleman got his information from, how much the rent amounted to and where it was brought into account.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that he was sorry to differ from any of his hon. Friends, but he must protest against any idea of Holyhead Harbour being sold. It would be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire to dispose of that splendid and necessary harbour to any railway company. While he would like the scandal on the Estimates to be dealt with, he thought it could be better done by securing that sufficient rent should be paid to cover the expenses. He and his hon. Friends were not asking the Treasury to spend, but to save something. Why should Holyhead be different from Harwich and hundreds of harbours round the coast in being maintained at such expense to the public funds? The hon. Member for King's Lynn might leave the defence of the Estimates to his two right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. Heretofore the hon. Member had criticised the Estimates, and if he were going to abandon his position of sturdy opposition to defend the Secretary to the Treasury, who was well able to take care of himself, many people would be much disappointed.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTShoped that the Board of Trade would send someone soon to look into the harbours of refuge on the Welsh coast, and would do it before the Board of Trade Vote came on, so that a more definite answer on the subject could be then given.
  SIR A. B. FORWOODsaid, that this question of Holyhead Harbour had been dealt with under an entire misapprehension of the facts. The harbour was not built for
  420
  the London and North Western Railway, or for communication with Ireland, but as a harbour of refuge for the protection of the shipping industry on the west coast. Until it was built the shipping in the Irish Channel was much exposed. The harbour was used more largely by the shipping than by the London and North Western Railway Company, and even more largely still by the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, which was entirely independent of the Railway. There ought to be a difference made between the cost of the inner harbour and the very costly works at the breakwater.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISurged, in disagreement with his hon. Friends, that Holyhead Harbour should be further extended and improved; and he had no doubt that the benefit to the mercantile marine generally would amply compensate for any expense incurred. That question had been brought forward again and again, and he regretted that, so far, the Government had not seen their way to effect improvements in this valuable harbour. Except Holyhead, there was not a single harbour on that coast into which a boat drawing more than eight feet of water could enter at low water. He supported the plea for better protection to the fishing industry.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the question of improvements in the harbour was now under consideration; and, as a matter of fact, all the points to which the hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs had alluded had been referred to Messrs. Hawkshaw and Hayter, who were to inquire and report to the Board of Trade. He was sorry that he could not answer the questions raised by the hon. Member for East Donegal, but before the Report stage he would be in a position to give full details.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid that, if the Government was in receipt of a substantial rent for the harbour from the Railway Company, that payment was not shown in the Appropriations in Aid.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that he thought he used the word "considerable," and not "substantial." But, in any case, he could not admit that the basis on which the hon. Gentleman calculated a considerable rent was a right basis. The

  421
  question, of the rent paid by the London and North Western Railway for their accommodation had hardly anything to do with the question of the expense of Holyhead. It was a mere incident that the railway went there at all; and the expense of the harbour would be practically the same if the railway did not go there. The Company did pay a considerable rent, and he would give the details at a later stage, but the hon. Gentleman would excuse him for not being altogether prepared at the moment with an answer on that difficult question.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman was the President of the Board of Trade, and did not speak with irresponsible frivolity. It was the right hon. Gentleman's business to know these matters. The fact remained that the Government, being in receipt of this rent, had not shown it in terms on the face of the estimate. The Appropriations in Aid were detailed. They comprised Harbour Dues and Casual Receipts, and under neither of these heads could this "considerable rent" be included. There was no form of language on the face of these Estimates which by any interpretation would lead the Committee to suppose that this "considerable rent," of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, was received.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid, that a few months ago the Government entered into an important contract greatly improving the carriage of the Irish Mails, and he understood that, as a consequence, improvements in the harbour were under consideration. Could not the Government arrange, when an improvement of this kind was made, that some better means should be devised for transferring the mails from the train to the steamer? This transfer, both at Holyhead and Kingstown, was as bad as could be imagined. It was effected merely by the means of porters between the vessel and the train. This method occupied a much greater time than was necessary in these days. He had frequently brought the matter before the Post Office, and the late Postmaster General had answered him sympathetically, though he had made no definite promises. Could not the Mails be transferred bodily in a truck from the train to the ship, or be packed in crates ready for removal?
  DR. CLARKsaid, the principle laid down and accepted by the House was, that if any officer who had a superannuation allowance took any office again under Government, while he held that office the superannuation pay should cease. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would see that that principle was carried out, and that no future appointments should be made of any officer with superannuation allowance except on the understanding that during the time he held the appointment the superannuation allowance should cease. With regard to the question of the lighthouses on the Bahamas, the Falkland Islands, Cape Pembroke, Cape Spartel in Morocco, etc., we still kept on spending a large amount of money on these lights, and on a most elaborate system of inspection. There were 11 lighthouses kept up in this way, at a cost of about £5,000, and the inspection cost about £14,000 a year. He pointed out that we wanted lights round our own coasts; there were a large number of places, in the north especially, in which lights were required more than in the Bahamas. In his own county the Northern Lights Committee were very anxious to have a lighthouse on the coast, where, during the present year, a ship had run ashore in a fog. In the Orkney Islands, further north, and on the west coast of Scotland, lighting was very much needed. He did not see why the cost of these lighthouses on the Bahamas should not be paid by the local Governments there, or why the taxpayers of this country should maintain a system of lights for the benefit of a few white men and half-castes in the West Indies.
  SIR A. B. FORWOODpointed out, in reference to the suggestion that no future appointment should be made of any officer receiving a superannuation allowance except on the understanding that while he held the appointment the superannuation allowance should cease, that a naval officer when he entered the service entered into a contract by which, when he arrived at a given age he was bound to retire. He was not bound to retire by reason of disqualification for want of health, but in order to afford scope for the now of promotion. He was entitled to a pension, no matter what other arrangements he might make

  423
  subsequently for his employment. With regard to the question of the Bahama Lighthouses, Dr. Clark clearly showed that he did not understand the subject. The hon. Member imagined that these lights were maintained for the benefit of the inhabitants of the islands; while the fact was that they were maintained for the benefit of the commerce of the civilised world. There was no more difficult or dangerous part to navigate than the Bahamas and surrounding islands, they being directly in the track not of the West Indian trade but of the trade of the great American ports, such as New Orleans and Mexico, and the lights were required for the protection of the commerce and shipping which found its way to these ports. Every civilised nation recognised that it was its duty to light its own coasts. The United States Government did so, and did not levy a sixpence, on any vessel for that purpose. British ships went up and down the United States coasts, and had the advantage of these lights without contributing anything. Now, thy Bahamas belonged to this country, and if we claimed to be a civilised country the least we could do was to light these outlying rocks which were a danger to navigation. British shipping he thought ought not to be charged with this duty, because these lights did not exist for the benefit of the Mercantile Shipping of the United Kingdom alone. They existed for the benefit of the shipping of the whole world; and they were required as much for the purposes of the Navy, as for those of the Mercantile Marine.
  MR. J. BRYCEsaid, he had before pointed out to the hon. Member for Caithness, the position of these lights, and if the Committee had not already heard the perpetual remarks of the right hon. Member opposite he should have had to do so again. These lights were absolutely necessary to British commerce. The islands were extremely poor and could not bear the cost, many of them being mere sand banks or coral reefs. The lighthouses were kept in good condition, and he believed the money was very well spent. The complaints received were rather that not enough money was spent upon the lights. As to our own local lights, the money came out of the Mercantile Marine Fund, and that was
  424
  a different matter altogether. The Board of Trade had taken steps for some years past to increase the lighting in the North of Scotland.
  On the return of the Chairman after the usual interval,
  MR. WILLIAM ALLANsaid, he had one fault to find with the estimate for the Bahama Lighthouses, and that was that the inspector and chief officer, together with the staff, were paid far too little. Such onerous duties as they had to discharge in such an unhealthy climate would warrant this country paying them far greater wages than those actually given to them. The Bahama Islands had about the most unhealthy climate of any place on the face of the earth. He had had in his time sorrowful experience of the Bahamas. They were surrounded by coral reefs, with four or seven feet of water on the top of them. Therefore, there should be plenty of lighthouses there to prevent vessels going to pieces on the dangerous coast. This estimate did not at all compensate the men who were there looking after those guardians of the deep, the lighthouses. He therefore thought the hon. Member for Caithness was a little eccentric in directing attention to the Bahama Lighthouses, because of all places they stood in need of being well lighted from north to south. He supported the estimate entirely—for it would not be in order to move an increase of salary to the officers—and he hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his objection. The Bahama Islands demanded the best lighting that human ingenuity, civilisation and engineering could provide.
  DR. CLARKsaid, the eloquence of the preceding speakers had not converted him in the slightest degree. He remained an impenitent sinner. They were asked to pay out of the Imperial Exchequer and the taxation of the United Kingdom a large sum for a number of lighthouses in one of our colonies.
  MR. ALLAN: It is not a colony at all. It is a dependency.
  DR. CLARKwent on to say that he did not want to shut out the lighthouses. He only wanted to change the burden of the cost from the ratepayers of the United Kingdom to the people benefited

  425
  by them. Round our own coasts, in Australia, in South Africa, in Crown Colonies, as well as self-governing colonies, there were lighthouses erected and maintained at their own cost, and many of them belonged to poor and weak colonies, and unhealthy colonies to boot. And why should the Bahamas be favoured more than these? Why should the lighthouses in this particular colony be exempted, seeing we had no control whatever over the expenditure of the money?
  MR. RITCHIEobserved that he took upon himself the entire responsibility for this vote. It was admitted on all hands that this was one of the most dangerous navigations it was possible to conceive. The lights in question were mainly used by British ships. He maintained that an expenditure of this kind, if it had the effect of benefiting British ships and saving British lives, was an expenditure to which no party in the country would object. ["Hear, hear!"] It was true the lights were beneficial to the Colony, but the Colony could not pay for them, and the greater advantage was reaped by British ships. They were, indeed, to a very great extent, for the protection of British industry and British lives, and, such being the case, he was sure the hon. Member would not object to the comparatively small sum they were now asking the House of Commons to pay. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. W. ALLANwould like to say a word or two by way of reply to the hon. Member for Caithness. He himself had sailed through every one of these islands, and he knew the dangers of the particular coast perhaps better than any gentleman in the House. The trade from Mexico, Mobile, and the West Coast of Florida—which was developing a large wood trade—came through the Bahamas. He did not know any part of the world which was more dangerous—note ven Bermuda with its circle of reefs was more dangerous than the Bahamas. They could not get a penny out of the people of the people of the Bahamas, for they were poor negroes. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty, whom he saw present, could tell the Committee something about one of the Bahamas. The hon. Member for Caithness was a little out of centre in, calling attention to this vote. The
  426
  money granted for the purpose of furnishing these lights was not nearly enough. It was British shipping that was protected, and not the poor negroes who were running about the islands half naked. Was it to be said that Britain should not go on paying for the lighting of such a dangerous coast when it was clear that the poor negroes who inhabited the islands could not pay for it? He considered the raising of a discussion such as that upon this vote was a mere waste of time.
  MR. J. KENYONshould support the vote simply on the ground of common humanity. He should do so in order that British vessels, as well as those of every other nationality, might go with safety near these lighthouses. He believed the lighthouses in the United Kingdom were well looked after, and he saw no reason for behaving shabbily in votes of this kind. The hon. Member for Gateshead, who had had great experience of the Bahamas, had told them of the dangers of navigation in this region. They ought to uphold the honour of their flag and keep the lighthouses in connection with it in proper order. If they had lighthouses with the Union Jack floating over them, let them either be kept in a proper state of efficiency, or, in default, handed over to someone else.
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Motion
  "That a sum, not exceeding £16,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1896, for constructing a new Harbour of Refuge at Peterhead,"
  DR. CLARKwas afraid he should have to move a reduction of the Vote, and also press his Motion to a Division, unless he could get a satisfactory answer. He complained of the dilatory manner in which the work was being proceeded with, pointing out that last year only about two-thirds of the money voted by the House for the purpose of developing the harbour, was expended. The original estimate for the entire work was about £750,000, and if they got off with an expenditure of about £250,000 more they would get out of it cheaply. The

  427
  local people had complained about the method in which the engineer was carrying out the work, contending that they were losing the benefit of Peterhead as a fishing harbour. They had advocated certain changes which it had been understood would be carried out in order to give them that protection to their industry which was necessary, but the changes suggested had not been effected. This question came before the Public Accounts Committee some little time ago and an explanation was offered as to why one-third of the money had not been spent. The investigation of that Committee resulted in some curious information being disclosed as to the methods of the Admiralty. It showed, for instance, that they had a system of keeping accounts by which thousands of pounds worth of material could disappear and nobody know anything about it. They had got an engineer-in-chief who was, he believed, more properly a consulting engineer—to whom they paid £800 a year. Then they had a resident engineer at £750 a year, to whom they gave an assistant. In moving a reduction of the vote by £100 for the engineer, he did not know whether it would come off the engineer-in-chief or the resident engineer. The excuse of the engineer, who was questioned on the subject, for not spending the money, was that he could not get a crane. They had got a large number of crane builders all over the country who would have been glad to have got an order from the engineer-in-chief, and because of the fact that there was no crane a sum of £6,500 which should have been spent on the works, was not so spent. When they came to the question of stores, the investigations of the Committee, to whose Report he referred hon. Members, showed that several hundreds of pounds worth of stores had disappeared, a matter as to which the Controller or Auditor-Genera was unable to give any explanation The contractors and engineers were allowed to do just as they thought right There was no proper control, and thousands of pounds worth of stores disappeared. He moved to reduce Item B, in respect to the salary of the engineer by £100, in the hope the Committee would be informed who was to blame for the present condition of affairs.
  MR. W. ALLANsaid the harbour works at Peterhead were of great dimenions and importance. When it was completed there would be no harbour like it on the East Coast. But the making of a harbour of such a character vas a purely engineering matter attended by very grave difficulties and dangers. The engineer-in-chief, the gentleman who planned the whole affair, was exposed to what might be called the war of the elements. On the East Coast, in the neighbourhood of Sunderland and the mouth of the Tyne he had seen huge clocks of concrete swept away in a night, and therefore he thought it was absurd 'or people at Peterhead to be dissatisfied with the progress of the harbour works there. The Peterheadians knew nothing about the work. The engineer proceeded as quickly as the elements allowed him, and it was paltry to move to reduce his salary by £100. Why reduce the engineer's salary by £100? He would not do such a thing; he was too much of an engineer for that. It was said stores were missing. He had seen a 50-ton crane carried away in a gale of wind. They could not account for the loss of stores under such circumstances. He hoped the Committee would look at the matter from a broad standpoint. He was sorry there were no more of such harbours and breakwaters on our coast, and therefore he appealed to the hon. Member for Caithness to withdraw his Amendment.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)hoped the hon. Member for Caithness would respond to the appeal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gateshead. He regretted the hon. Member had not given him notice of the Question he intended to raise.
  DR. CLARKsaid that the question was raised in the last Report of the Public Accounts Committee.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid, he was expressing regret the hon. Member had not called his attention to the point he intended to raise in order that he might have had further imformation. The hon. Member began his statement by saying that there was the belief in some people's minds that the time for the execution of these works was being wilfully prolonged, and

  429
  also that the Committee might consider themselves lucky if the estimate was exceeded by less than a quarter of a million sterling. He was happy to be able to assure the hon. Member that there was no foundation for those statements. The works were being pushed on as fast as the circumstances of the case would allow, and there was no reason to suppose that the estimate would be at all exceeded. He would, however, look into the matter, so as to be able to give the hon. Gentleman fuller information another year.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONjoined in the appeal to the hon. Member for Caithness to withdraw the Amendment. The master of the situation was the Secretary to the Treasury, who he thought had expressed an opinion in favour of an increased annual expenditure in the work at Peterhead. Now that the right hon. Gentleman held the purse strings he might perhaps be able to give effect to his wishes. The hon. Member for Caithness alluded to a matter for which he seemed to wish to make him (Mr. E. Robertson) more directly responsible than the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, viz. a question which was brought to the notice of the Public Accounts Committee during the last Session. The report was never brought to his notice, and therefore he could not be expected to attempt any explanation. He had no doubt the hon. Gentleman who was now in charge of the Vote, would give attention to the subject, and would afford the explanations that were proper. Personally he could not see it was at all fair to reduce the salaries of the engineers. Those salaries were matters of bargain. The resident engineer was required to devote his whole time to the work. Having put that restriction upon his professional work, it would hardly be fair to cut down his salary.
  DR. CLARKsaid, it was true that on all past occasions this Vote was taken charge of by the Secretary to the Treasury, but on interviewing the present Secretary to the Treasury on the subject he was informed by the right hon. Gentleman that an answer to his question would be given by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. The Civil Lord complained that notice of the question had
  430
  not been given. That was because he (Dr. Clark) had not had time to put an amendment on the paper, owing to the manner in which the Address was rushed through that morning with the aid of the Closure. The Civil Lord and the ex-Civil Lord say they had no information on the subject. His attention was called to it by the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. Here were works under the control of the Admiralty in connection with which stores to the value of £2,000, including £500 worth of cement, disappeared.
  MR. ALLAN: The cement was washed away.
  Dr. CLARKsaid the cement was not washed away. The story was that a ship with a cargo of cement, intended for the works, foundered, and that the cement was lost; and what he wanted to arrrive at was, who was responsible for the loss—was it the Government or the contractor? It was not known whether the cement was the property of the Government, and if it were the Government's property, whether the ship had been insured.
  SIR A. B. FORWOOD: Let me tell the hon. Member that the Government never insure.
  DR. CLARKsaid that in any case the Government ought to be told whether the cement was the contractor's or the Government's—whether it was ordered by the Government or ordered by the contractor. The Public Accounts Committtee tried to get the information, but failed. He congratulated the Civil Lord on his hopefulness. But he thought that when the hon. Gentleman was an older Member he would not be so ready to indulge in prophecies as to what would take place in regard to Votes.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The hon. Member having moved a Motion in regard to a particular item must confine his remarks to the discussion of that item. He cannot discuss the entire Vote.
  DR. CLARKsaid he would not pursue the point further. He would withdraw the Amendment, but would raise the matter again on Report, when he hoped the Civil Lord would be able to give some information on the point.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Vote for £121,525, the amount required to complete the charge for rates and contributions in lieu of rates in respect to Government property, and for rates on houses occupied by the representatives of Foreign Powers, and by the salaries and expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department,
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT, said, the Vote raised the important question of the non-rating of Government property, because, although it included contributions in lieu of rates, rating of Government buildings, practically, did not exist at all. The Vote was headed "Rating," therefore, only on the principle of lucus a non lucendo, yet both London and the provinces were greatly interested, for the Government had its buildings in every quarter of the Kingdom. It had its post offices, its telegraph offices, its Custom houses, and its Inland Revenue offices, &c., all of which were exempt from local rates, thus making heavier the burdens of local authorities which had to maintain in a proper condition the towns and districts in which those buildings were situated. He thought the distinction that thus existed between private property owners and occupiers, whose rates were assessed by the Assessment Committees, and who were under a legal obligation to pay those rates, and the Government, as the owner of property which was not assessed at all, which was under no legal obligation to pay rates, and which claimed to be its own valuer for its voluntary contributions in lieu of rates, was a distinction wholly unjustifiable, and most unfair to the local authorities. He had heard a great deal lately about the burden of local rates. To a great extent those complaints were true, but he would point out that in rating Government property they had a possible source of revenue in aid of local taxation amounting to some hundreds of thousands of pounds per annum, and that if they only took care that all property bore—as it ought to bear—its fair proportion of local taxation, the burden of the ratepayers would be largely relieved. He also frequently heard it said that personal property ought to take its share in local taxation. In the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill there was a Statute renewed annually which excluded personal
  432
  property from local rating, and it only required a stroke of the pen to omit that Statute from the Schedule of the Bill in order to place all property under the obligation to contribute to local rates. He had moved for a return of all the Government property in the United Kingdom, and of the sums the Government contributed voluntarily on their own assessment in lieu of rates on this property, and he wished to know when that return might be expected. This was not yet presented to the House, and therefore he would not move any Amendment now, but he gave notice that early next Session he would take the opportunity of ascertaining the sense of the House on the subject. He was not blaming the late Government. He acknowledged that they had increased the contribution this year by £48,000, and he could only regret that in his constituency, where complaints were made of the exemption from rating of the prisons, the increase was only £20. Locally this was felt to be a great grievance, and a source of loss to the local authority of many hundreds a year. That seemed a small proportion of the whole increase; but in making the increase the late Government had shown some public spirit. But he wished to assure the Secretary to the Treasury that there was only one principle which could satisfy the local authorities, and that was the ending of the exemption of the Goverment property from rating, whether by custom or by statute. Government property must also be assessed by an independent authority. What could the House think of the principle which allowed every man to be his own valuer for rating purposes? Whatever principle applied to the individual ought to apply to the community as a whole, represented by the Government. He invited his right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, whose advocacy of these points in the past had been so useful, to give a favourable consideration to the question between now and next Session. The return moved for by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) ought to be brought up to date, and he hoped that the Government would allow that as an unopposed return. The House would then have a Return from London and from the provinces, which would show that the latter

  433
  had a much larger interest in this question than was supposed.
  MR. LOUGHsaid, that the House was indebted to the hon. Member for the many occasions on which he had called attention to this important subject. But he attached even more importance to it than the hon. Gentleman, and, unless he could get a satisfactory answer from the Government on certain essential points, he should, later on, be compelled to move an Amendment. This question had been discussed long enough; and a settlement ought now to be made. He hoped their contention would not be met by the statement that the Estimates were framed by one Government and were being defended by another. This was one of those cases in which the two Front Benches were against the House. The matter was put very badly on the Estimate—indeed, as if the object of the framers was to conceal, and not to give information as to the amount of the contribution. He noticed that Ireland had to pay twice as much as Scotland for this Government contribution to rates, though Scotland was twice as rich as Ireland. Why should Scotland get off with £20,000, as against the £40,000 paid by Ireland? Again, the increase in the contribution was, in Scotland, £4,000, and in Ireland, £8,000. Why was that? As to the Treasury Valuer and Inspector of Rates, it was a very bad practice to have a valuer who was interested in the matter to settle the assessment. As to the item "Rates and contributions in lieu of rates," how much was in respect of London property, and how much in respect of property outside London? London paid one-seventh of the whole local taxation of the country; therefore, a substantial part of the total contribution should be given to the London local authorities. For Admiralty property £61,000 a year was paid. The new Admiralty buildings in London cost £500,000, and, at 4 per cent., ought alone to pay £20,000, while the old Admiralty buildings were worth £1,000,000. The Customs contributed £4,600 a year. The Custom House in Thames Street ought itself to pay much more than £4,600; and yet this sum covered the contribution for Custom Houses all over the country. For Public Buildings, Law Courts, Parks, &c.,
  434
  £70,000 a year was contributed The London Law Courts covered 7½ acres of ground, and should themselves contribute more than the total sum. And was anything really paid for the Royal Parks? Was it quite honest to include them in the Estimate? In respect of each of these items—making up the £312,000—the House ought to know how much was contributed in respect of London, and how much in respect of property outside London. They were between two stools in this matter. One principle was to exempt Government property altogether from rating; and another principle was to make Government property pay just like the property of public authorities all over the country; and in the long run one of the two principles would have to be selected. He feared that we had gone too far now to accept the principle that Government property should be exempt, and therefore the other principle must be accepted. Government property, moreover, must be submitted to an independent assessment authority. But how far were we from that state of things? Somerset House was valued at £6,400. The mere frontage on the Strand was worth much more than that. The post offices and police stations all over London were contributing only a nominal sum to the local authorities, and they ought to contribute in proportion to their full value. The London County Council had to do that, in respect of its property. It was a central authority in a very similar position to that of the Government, and it had tried to pursue the same course as the Government. But, after carrying the question to the House of Lords, the County Council had been condemned to pay fully on all its parks. Brockwell Park, which had been recently acquired by the County Council, was formerly 135 acres of agricultural land, valued each year at about £140. The Council paid £140,000 for the park, and immediately the local authority insisted on being paid rates on this £140,000. The recent decision of the House of Lords would compel the Council to pay £3,000 or £4,000 a year to the rates in respect of this park. The Council had 3,300 acres of parks in London—nearly as great as the extent of the Royal Parks, and all were rated by the local authorities.

  435
  If it were just that the Council should pay rates, why not the Government also? The County Council had also erected main drainage works on waste land outside the boundary of London at the cost of £47,000. The local authorities compelled the County Council to pay 3 per cent. per annum as a contribution to the rates. All fire brigade stations over London were rated fully to the local authorities. It therefore seemed to him that it was time the question should be settled, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to grant a Committee to take into consideration the whole subject.
  MR. W. F. SMITHsaid that the constituency which he represented was greatly interested in this question. Somerset House and the Law Courts were situated in his constituency, and, though he admitted that the assessment paid by these buildings this year had been increased, it was not what the Assessment Committees of the district expected. Last Session, when the late Secretary to the Treasury dealt with this question, he hoped that the Committee of the Strand district would be satisfied with the increase made. The Committee expressed some satisfaction at the increase, but he had since received a communication which led him to suppose that the Assessment, Committee of the district would not be satisfied until the principle had been recognised by the Treasury that the Assessment Committees should be allowed to propose the assessment, and then that the Government should make the objection as in the case of the ordinary ratepayer.
  MR. B. COHENagreed with the speech of the hon. Member for South Islington, though it was not reasonable to expect that all the grievances complained of should be redressed in the short time the Government had been in office. He looked forward to the recognition of the principle that the Government should be subject to the same rules and regulations as in the case of other private property.
  MR, J. CALDWELLtook a different view of this question from the London Members. Government property was different in character from private property. Take for instance the erection of a post office; if it was to be erected in Glasgow, Liverpool or
  436
  Manchester, the local authorities generally wished to see the building erected on a valuable site and costly in character. If this was to be done out of the Imperial Funds the authorities could hardly expect that an ornamental building should be erected on the same principle as a factory. That was an element in the case which must be taken into consideration. They got these parks for nothing, and they also got their police buildings and their police stations provided for them, whereas in Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, and the other great towns, they had to be provided by the local authorities. They were getting all this in London, and yet they complained that they did not get enough. They required to consider these points, and then it would be found that the matter was not so easy. They were matters which required to be gone into very carefully. Then they had museums. The rest of the United Kingdom would be glad to have these things. They would be glad to have them more spread over the country, and not concentrated in London. These things should not be concentrated in London, but should be given, some of them, to Scotland and Ireland. What advantage had they in the British Museum and South Kensington? He mentioned these things merely to show that there were two sides to this question, and that before they considered that Government Buildings were to be treated the same as private property, they must look at the great advantage which localities like London derived from having these large Government buildings in their midst. On the whole, he did not think that London had any cause to grumble.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, he was afraid that it was not possible for him, from the information he had at present, to answer the hon. Member opposite as to the exact figures in the matter of rates between London and the provinces. With regard to the general question of the rating of Government property, it had passed through three stages. Up to 1874, the Government only contributed to the Poor Rate in parishes where there was a certain amount of Government property, but in that year a change took place, and it was decided that Government property should pay rates in exactly the same way as if the property was in

  437
  private hands. That had been the general principle. Then it was said that such might be the principle, but, as a matter of face, the full rates were not paid, as the Government kept its own Valuer. That was the real point at issue. He did not propose to express any final opinion upon this question of a Government Valuer, but he should like to call attention to the fact that Government property was in a different position from private property. It would be very difficult indeed for an ordinary local valuer to value property which was often of a very varied type. This property was scattered all over the country, and they would have different assessments in different districts. There was a great deal to be said in favour of having a Treasury Valuer, whose principle of valuation would be the same throughout the whole country. Another point raised was that the Government were paying their rates on a low valuation made in 1874—in fact that there ought to be a quinquennial valuation. He thought there was a good deal to be said for that. Whenever applications were made to the Treasury for revaluation, the cases were very few in which they were not acceded to. Some of the arguments of the Member for South Islington were old ones in connection with the subject. He referred to the case of the County Council for London, who had complained repeatedly that the valuation of Government property in London was very much below the mark. But he would remind hon. Members that the County Council had no locus standi in this matter. He would give one or two instances to show that the estimate of the loss by the present valuation of Government property in London was very high. In the case of the Treasury and large Foreign Office buildings, a very important block, ["Hear, hear!"]—the local authorities of St. Margaret and St. John, Westminster, wrote on February 14, saying that they agreed to the valuation, which
  438
  they considered fair and just. The valuation in the case of the Law Courts were fixed by Statute, and was quite outside the purview of the Treasury Valuer. Another class of buildings were represented by the British Museum and National Gallery. Even when buildings were occupied by private societies for purposes of science and art, they were exempt by statute from rating, but the Government did not ask to have them exempt, but simply to have them put on a little lower scale than if they were in the hands of an ordinary individual. In regard to Somerset House, the County Council had enunciated excessive ideas. On the lines suggested, the valuation of the whole of Somerset House would be about £70,000, while the whole valuation of the rateable value in the rest of the same parish of St. Mary-le-Strand was only £36,000. This question was one of large extent, affecting the Provinces just as much as London, and he would remind London Members of a fact which would hardly make the provincial Members back up the case of the London Members with regard to the contribution by Government to the rates in London, and that fact was that previously to the time when the Government contributed towards the rates of the Metropolis it was thought that London should contribute largely to the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. Now the Government were paying rates on their property and were also paying £10,000 a year towards the Fire Brigade. Speaking as a provincial Member, he was not clear that, if this question of rating was to be gone into, and if London Members pressed for the rating of Government property in London by the Local Authorities and not by the Government Inspector, this might not work some injustice in the Provinces, because they would not have the same skilled valuation all through the country, and because of this additional fact, that London was at the present time receiving £10,000 for its Fire Brigade over and

  439
  above the contribution in lieu of rates, which satisfied the authorities solely concerned. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. J. STUARTsaid, the reply of the Minister had raised somewhat larger issues than the Debate, because the contributions of the Government through the rates on its own property had been brought by him into contrast with other Government contributions. All these considerations were but parts of one great question. It would be found that London was more largely interested than any other part of the country, and that the Government did not contribute so much in proportion to the rateable value of the Metropolis as was generally supposed. It was thought that even under the existing law there ought to be more frequent re-valuations of Government property and that a large portion yet could be easily valued upon ordinary principles, although there were exceptional instances, such as that of the building in which Parliament met. The assessment authorities were primarily interested; the London County Council were largely interested; but those who were most concerned were the ratepayers in any district where there was Government property occupying, as it did in some instances, a very large portion of the administrative area of the local authority, and thus reducing the contribution that would otherwise be received from ordinary ratepayers. The case was not met by saying that the Government property brought employment, because, where it did so, it did not in that respect surpass what would be done by large works in private hands, whilst the burdens placed on the locality were the same. These arguments were accepted by the hon. Gentleman, who no doubt would take steps, as his predecessor had done, to raise the valuations of Government property in London where they were insufficient. The hon. Gentleman had endeavoured, in the case of London, to palliate the evil by referring to certain per contra contributions which were given by the Treasury.
  MR. HANBURY: I did not speak of them as per contra at all. I said our contention was that we paid our fair share of the rates and that we paid the £10,000 a year in addition.
  MR. STUARTcontinued that if you looked at all the relations of London and the Central Government, the question was an extremely complicated one, and the contribution to the Fire Brigade would appear to be a very minor matter. He had previously pointed out that all the questions raised in connection with Exchequer contributions and the rating of Government property ought to be considered together and dealt with as a whole. He hoped the hon. Gentleman, who had shewn a grasp of the whole subject, would consent to appoint a departmental Committee to make a complete investigation and a full statement, embracing parks, police superannuation, Fire Brigade and everything else, so that in future they might be saved the repetition of these Debates, in which attempts were made to balance one thing by setting off another, without realising either the complete relation of the Exchequer to London or the position of London as compared with other places. A comprehensive Report of the nature suggested would be accepted with gratification by London Members on both sides of the House.
  MR. P. J. POWERsaid, they were all willing to make allowance for the fact that the Secretary to the Treasury had been suddenly called upon to take charge of the Department, and could not be expected to give all the explanations that might otherwise be expected from him. But he would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he could give any idea of the principle upon which Government property in Ireland was assessed? Local authorities in various localities were dissatisfied with the contributions they received, and felt that the Government did not bear its fair share of local taxation. In the case of landed property he would ask what system of

  441
  valuation was adopted? The Government had acquired for gunnery practice, almost the fee simple of a large area of land in the County of Cork; and the local authorities were anxious to know what proportion of the local burdens the Government would bear in respect of this area. As a ratepayer, he would be glad to hear roughly on what principle local burdens were borne by Government property. The general opinion was that Government property was not taxed half as heavily as the property of private individuals.
  Mr. PROVANDpointed out that the Imperial Government handed over to Scotland £25,000 in lieu of rates, while £41,000 was paid to Ireland. When next year the House had before it a return showing the valuation of Government property, and what was paid in lieu of rates to the local authorities, they would see the real bearings of the case, and there would be less disposition to seek for grievances in different constituencies.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLdid not see why public buildings should not be assessed in the ordinary way on the principle that the Secretary to the Treasury used to vindicate before he was in office, as one which was not at all novel.
  DR. KENNYsaid, Government property in Dublin was much under-rated as compared with similar property in London, and the fact was a source of great local dissatisfaction. Besides the fact that Government property in London was rated higher, a contribution of £10,000 a year was made by the Government to the cost of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. No contribution was made to the Fire Brigade in Dublin, a much poorer city, and where the Fire Brigade was much in need of reconstruction. Either the valuation of Government property in Dublin should be revised, or there should be a rate in aid of the Fire Brigade.
  DR. CLARKsaid that, when the claim that had been put forward on behalf of London by the hon. Member came to be analysed and examined he did not think that it was very well founded. The hon. Gentleman complained that the Royal Parks and pleasure grounds of London were not sufficiently provided for. But the fact was that the country paid enormous sums for the maintenance of these parks and pleasure grounds, and for the erection and maintenance of the public buildings in the Metropolis. Manchester, Liverpool, and the other large towns of England, Ireland, and Scotland paid large sums annually for the maintenance of their own public parks and pleasure grounds, whereas London expected all the expenditure on those objects to be provided for by the State. The result of yielding to the demand that public buildings should pay rates, would be to put large sums of money into the pockets of a few ground landlords in three or four small parishes in London. It was for the benefit of those gentlemen that this assault was made upon the public purse year by year. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into this matter, in which event he was satisfied that not the slightest case would be made out in favour of the claim that was put forward. The noble Marquess at the head of the Government had found himself unable to agree with the recommendations of the Royal Commission which had sat to consider the question. The noble Marquess was in favour of the Government property being rated upon its capital value. The result would be that in certain parishes one-half or two-thirds of the rates would be paid by the State greatly to the benefit of a few ground landlords in the Metropolis. The fact was, that London was as much a spoiled child of the Treasury as Ireland was. Ireland had always been a spoiled child of the Treasury, and a very wideawake one too, and her

  443
  representatives stood together as one man with the object of squeezing the Treasury as much as they could, although he was not quite sure that Ireland really benefited by that course being adopted. It was just the same as regarded grants in aid of local expenditure. Thus, whereas Scotland only received, £70,000 for that purpose, Ireland received £140,000, although England, which was far the most populous country, only received £170,000. He did not think that that could be called a real Irish grievance. At another period of the Session he should have been inclined to have divided the Committee on the item of £10,000 for the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. He thought that there was much to be said against the present mode of putting down appropriations in aid.
  MR. HANBURYsaid that, with regard to the proportion of rates paid in London and in the Provinces, as a matter of fact London received a good deal more than a quarter of the whole amount. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Dublin, as to a re-valuation in Ireland, hon. Members from Ireland were perfectly entitled to ask that, if there was a re-valuation of Government property in England, there should also be a re-valuation in Ireland. As to what the hon. Member had said with regard to the valuation of Government property in Dublin being low as compared with that in London, of course the best guarantee the Government could give that the valuations should be relatively the same in both cities was to have a Government Inspector in both cases. He should be rather inclined to think that if a system were adopted whereby the Government Inspector were abolished, the differences would be much greater in the future than they were at present.
  DR. KENNYsaid his point was that the valuations in Ireland were lower than those in England, and totally inadequate. They were very old, and had not been revised for years. The valu-
  444
  ation of Dublin Castle at £4,000 was absurdly low.
  MR. FLYNNsaid that the opinion was strongly held in Ireland that the greater portion of Government property in that county was held at a very low valuation indeed. He should be very glad to know what steps the Government proposed to take with regard to a re-valuation. Did they intend to call in the Government Valuer? It was quite obvious that the Government official might follow precedent in the matter, and might apply the measurement that he found had already been applied to Government property. A large body of qualified opinion showed that the Government buildings in Cork, military barracks, military hospitals, and so on, were very largely undervalued. There was one item he would like to have some explanation about, and that was the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. He was not speaking as a Metropolitan Member, but as a representative of that portion of the United Kingdom which lay outside London. He asked for what reason there should be a grant levied upon the general taxes of the country for the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. He was aware that a system prevailed in London which did not prevail in the provinces, whereby the fire insurance offices were compelled to pay a contribution, but why the general taxpayer should be called upon for this purpose he could not understand. In Cork they had to find money for the Fire Brigade out of their own rates, and why, he asked, should not London do the same?
  MR. HANBURYsaid, he had already explained that this contribution to the Metropolitan Fire Brigade was a grant made under the provisions of an Act of Parliament of some 30 years ago, and as he had already said, it wae a grant made at the time when the Government property did not pay anything like a fair contribution towards the rates. Of course he was not called upon at the present moment either to condemn or justify this

  445
  special expenditure, but simply to give all the information in regard to it of which he was possessed.
  MR. STUARTpointed out that again they were raising a very wide question. London only got a contribution of four-ninths for its police, whereas the rest of the country got a contribution of one-half. He submitted that an inquiry into the whole matter was necessary.
  MR. FLYNNsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had contented himself with saying merely that he found this amount in the Estimates.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, he had pointed out that it was made under an Act of Parliament.
  MR. FLYNNsaid, they objected to the contribution on principle. The right hon. Gentleman might have answered that there was a large amount of Government property in London, but that would not be a sufficient reason for him. The present system was one which differentiated in favour of the most wealthy Metropolis in the world.
  MR. LOUGHthanked the right hon. Gentleman for the conciliatory way in which he had answered a large number of questions put to him. He had gone the full length of the principle that he himself contended for, but would he carry out the principle that Goverment property should be rated as other property was? The right hon. Gentleman had claimed that his own assessors should make the re-valuation, but that would not be carrying out the principle he had accepted. The difficulty in which they were placed was expressed by the hon. Member for East Islington, who stated that right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Bench had not worked long enough for him to press the Secretary to the Treasury on the question. But the right hon. Gentlemen had been able to think out the matter during the past three years, and had had more leisure and time to think it out than the Members of the late Government. All that they asked for
  446
  was a clear and distinct statement from the right hon. Gentleman to the effect that he was prepared to go the length of the speeches which he had made on the subject in the House. The First Lord of the Admiralty had during the past three or four months spoken on the question at several County Council meetings in London, and when the right hon. Gentleman entered the House just now he thought that he had come with the intention of supporting the proposal which had been submitted. What they wanted was an acceptance of the principle laid down in a clear and explicit manner. The case of Ireland had been strongly put by two or three hon. Members, who showed that the same grievance existed in Ireland as in London and elsewhere, for they had heard complaints from Cork, Dublin, and other places in Ireland, of police barracks and other Government property being greatly undervalued. He saw no reason whatever why the principle they urged should not be frankly adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. Although unwilling to press the matter to a Division, yet he must take his stand with his hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch in asking the right hon. Gentleman to grant a Committee to place the matter on a proper basis once for all. His hon. Friend had a promise from the late Government that such a Committee should be granted. If the right hon. Gentleman desired to base himself on the position taken by the late Government, then he ought to promise a Committee. Considering the gravity of the subject, especially so far as London was concerned, he did not think he could go further than press the right hon. Gentleman to grant the Committee in accordance with the Treasury Minute.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that on the 17th of August, 1892, Sir John Hibbert, the late Secretary to the Treasury, said, in answer to a question, that having taken into account all the circumstances of the case where there was a small valuation of Government property, he

  447
  was prepared to bring in a Bill to place Government property in the same position as other property. When the right hon. Gentleman was asked whether that answer applied to the three countries, he replied in the affirmative. He quite agreed that it was a difficult thing to value places like the House of Commons, or the India Office, or the War Office, because they could not be compared with other buildings. Reference had been made to a Bill which had been promised to deal with small Government buildings, which he presumed to be in the nature of storehouses; but why not leave to the local authority the duty of rating buildings of that character, and giving the Government the same power of appeal as was given to the ordinary taxpayer. Even then the Government would be in an advantageous position in the matter. The system by which the Government property in Ireland was valued was different from the usual course. It was not valued by the proper rating authority, but a Government valuer was sent over from London to do the work. The right hon. Gentleman, from the speeches he had made, had evidently formed independent views on the matter, and when he saw the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman to the office he held, he at once said that a better man could not have been found to fill it. The right hon. Gentleman had formed his opinions as an independent Member of Parliament, and what they expected was, that he would now endeavour to carry out the views he had thus expressed. He quite agreed with what the hon. Member for Shoreditch had said—that it was not possible to take up this great question and deal with it piecemeal. The question of the valuation of Government property was one that ought to be dealt with comprehensively. Of course if the London Members were given the chance they would band themselves together like cormorants to oppose the interests of the rest of the Kingdom. The permanent officials of the Treasury
  448
  were, of course, all Cockneys, who thought that the world began and ended with London.
  MR. HANBURYpresumed that all that Sir John Hibbert meant by the promise which had been referred to was that he would give the effect of law by a Bill to the concession already made by the Treasury minute, which recognised that Government property should be rated in the same way as private property was rated in similar circumstances. It was not Sir John Hibbert's intention to do away with the Government inspector. He thought himself that there was a good deal to be said for the retention of the Government inspector, it being desirable that the same system of Government valuation should prevail throughout the Kingdom. The Government recognised that the whole question was important, and had determined to give full consideration to it. Whether inquiry were made by a Select Committee or by a Departmental Committee, or whether it took the form of investigation by what the hon. Member opposite called independent minds, the Government would do their best to deal with the subject as a whole.
  MR. FLYNNprotested against the annual claim that was made by the Metropolis to receive £10,000 from the country in respect of the protection of life and property from fire. The Act under which the claim was made was passed 30 years ago, and yet the Metropolis still enacted its full pound of flesh. They ought to have some promise that the Treasury would inquire into the matter. Why should this rich city get this benefit at the expense of the rest of the country?
  MR. HANBURYsaid that this was only a part of the whole rating question, into which he had already promised that there should be inquiry.
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Vote of £126,045 to complete the sum necessary for the erection,

  449
  repairs and maintenance of Public Buildings in Ireland, for the maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works, and for Drainage Works on the Rivers Shannon and Suck,
  MR. T. M. HEALYsuggested that a little more expense should be gone to for the amusement of the poorer people in Phœnix Park, Dublin, as was done in England. Near the entrance, for example, some gymnastic appliances might be put up. He supposed a £20 note would cover the whole thing, and it was not a large demand to make for the children of the poorer classes. Again, a very small sum would provide the construction and maintenance of ornamental waters in the park, similar to those which were so much appreciated in the London parks. Some ten years ago he worried the Government into placing a number of wooden benches about the park to which they would not even put backs. The Government might put up a few seats with backs to them. The cricket-ground provided for the working people was a joke on a cricket-ground, and when money was expended for the amusement of the richer people something ought to be done for the poorer classes, who had a right to the enjoyment of their own park. Then he had to complain of a permanent obstruction in the polo-ground. No doubt a great many people enjoyed seeing polo, but the moment they gave some people an inch they took an ell, and the polo players had erected a permanent structure in the enclosure which he protested against as an obstruction. If Nationalists or temperance people, like the hon. Member for South Tyrone, went to the Park for a meeting, they would not be allowed to erect a platform there. In 1886 he went to the Treasury Office with the hon. Member for North Dublin, and they got a pledge that the Treasury would not allow any further permanent erections to be set up in the Phœnix Park. Such a thing would not be allowed in Hyde Park for anybody in the whole world.
  450
  They had been allowed to rail in a considerable portion of the park for their amusement, and they ought not to be permitted to erect a permanent stand house in addition. The public were entitled to some protection against such encroachments. There was an item on the Vote relating to the Royal Hospital at Kilmainham. Lord Wolseley had just been appointed Commander-in-Chief of the British Army, and, as an Irishman, he was glad to see his promotion. But Lord Wolseley, when in command of the troops in Ireland, did what no other Commander-in-Chief did with regard to the Royal Hospital. The public had hitherto had the right of passing through the Royal Hospital grounds on cars, which was a convenient way of reaching Kilmainham. Lord Wolseley, however, took it into his head, two years ago, to shut out the public from the exercise of this right. He hardly thought his successor, Lord Roberts, would need any intimation on the point; and it was only fair, now that Lord Woleseley had assumed the chief command in this country, that the Dublin public should be allowed to revert to their old right of passing through Kilmainham Park on cars. The hon. Gentleman urged the necessity of some system of cross reference in the arrangement of the Votes, so that Members might readily ascertain to what subjects certain items referred—a difficult task under the present arrangement. There was a sum in the Vote in respect of the Boyne Navigation, and in referring to it he expressed himself against giving private companies public grants. It would be better if the Government were to work canals and similar undertakings themselves, or else put them up to public auction, instead of allowing themselves to be subjected to illegitimate pressure from their supporters, and thus induced to conclude a bargain which was not so much to the advantage of the public as to individuals. When he referred

  451
  to public auction, he did not mean such a transaction as that relating to the Derry Central Railway, which had been sold to the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Company for some £3,000 or,£4,000. This was a matter which the present Government were not responsible for. It occurred in the time of the late Government, and, in his opinion, the permanent officials were to blame. Having mortgaged the railway for some £30,000 or £40,000, they made a private deal with the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway, by which the Company acquired some 20 or 30 miles of a line which had cost £60,000 or £70,000 for the trifling sum of about £4,000. Sir John Hibbert said the bargain was the best that could be made; but the fact was that the Great Northern and the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Companies were both competing for the line, and if the Board of Works had done their duty they would have sold it to the highest bidder, giving all parties a chance; instead of which they made a private deal. But for the Dissolution he would have taken steps to stop the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Company's private Bill which sanctioned the arrangement. The public were really kept in the dark in the matter. The company interested sneaked through the House a private Bill which sanctioned the arrangement, Members were deprived of the legitimate opportunity of criticism, and public money to the extent, he thought, of £50,000 was wasted. He did not like attacking the Irish Board of Works. It was a hopeless body. He and others had criticised the Board for 15 years, and it was no bettor now than it was 15 years ago. Why could not the Board build a pier which would stand? There was not a pier built by the Board of Works which was of any practical value. To-day they had heard of the last joke, that relating to a pier in Wicklow. The grand jury was a mere chance body, and cared no more about
  452
  Wicklow than he cared about Japan. To expect that they would make a contributory grant was absurd. Grand juries cared nothing about little maritime places, and the towns were too small to have Commissioners, and there was no machinery the people could put in motion. The Treasury and the English gentlemen said:—
  "Oh, why don't you do as we do in England, and pay for the works yourselves?"
  They wanted a Parliament of their own and the management of their own money As long as England refused them the institutions they desired, they must insist upon criticising the body put over them. The Board of Works ought to be taken out of the hands of the Treasury. The Chief Secretary, for instance, had no control of his own house. That was an absurdity and an anomaly. The latest thing was that Limerick had been fined £1,900 for not keeping the fish gap in order. Ho suggested that the Lord Lieutenant should, by the exercise of his viceregal authority, grant a Royal pardon to the Board of Works in regard to that matter.
  MR. J. DILLONsaid, he noticed in the Estimate that a grant of £2,500 was given to the Queen's College, Belfast, for physiological and pathological laboratories; £150 to Galway Queen's College for a chemical laboratory, and nothing at all to the Queen's College, Cork. He thought that as Belfast was the richest of the three cities in which the Queen's Colleges were situated, the largest grant should go to Galway and Cork. He also noticed an item of £936 for the maintenance of police protection huts. He assumed those huts were for the protection of evicted farmers and boycotted people. He regretted to see that the sums showed an increase on the amount voted for the same purpose last year when it was £863. He supposed that between three and four hundred extra police were

  453
  stationed in those huts, and that their cost was between £20,000 and £30,000 a year. He did not think there could be a stronger argument than this fact to induce the Chief Secretary to produce some scheme for the reinstatement of the evicted tenants, which would put an end to the lamentable condition of things that rendered those protection huts necessary. The cost of such a scheme would be between£100,000 and £200,000, for he believed it would be extremely difficult to settle the evicted tenants' problem without some such expenditure of public money; but it should be remembered that the interest on that amount would be only about £6,000 a year, whereas £30,000 had been spent annually for the past ten years in the maintenance of those police protection huts.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONsaid, that in regard to the grant to the Queen's College, Belfast, the President of the College had waited on Sir John Hibbert, the late Secretary to the Treasury, and explained to him how necessary it was in the interest of education that the college should be supplied with those laboratories. He could assure the hon. Member for East Mayo that the case for the laboratories had been clearly made out. He could not sit down without expressing the hope that the present Secretary to the Treasury would act in regard to Irish matters with the same generous spirit as Sir John Hibbert always had done, and he would like also to say, if he might do so without impertinence, what a pleasure it was to them on both sides of the House to see the present Chairman of Committees presiding over their discussions.
  MR. CLANCYcalled attention to the continued and increasing encroachment on the Phœnix Park, which was intended as a recreation ground for the people, and not to provide cheap sites for Government buildings. The Irish Members had an interview with the Head of the Treasury on this point in 1886. That Gentleman—the late Secretary of State for India—though a man of experience, was, they found, absolutely a child in the hands of the Treasury Permanent Officials. He was apparently willing to do what the Irish Members wanted, but he was not able to do anything at all
  454
  They found out that even the Lord Lieutenant himself was helpless. The Lord Lieutenant objected on public grounds to some of this land being taken, for a less worthy purpose than to provide a site for a Government building, and his objection was actually overruled by some Official at the Treasury. He warned the present Secretary to the Treasury, while he was fresh to official life; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to conquer the Permanent Officials, and to show them that he was the master.
  MR. T. GILHOOLYdirected the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to a Treasury Minute passed within the last two years, which practically nullified the operation of a part of the Land Act of 1891. Under the Act loans might be granted to tenants by the Board of Public Works, a tenant whose valuation was £10 being competent to receive a loan of £50. By the Treasury Minute that £50 was reduced to £30. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in office said that the Minute was passed because the Treasury had lost something by some evictions in Ireland.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to point out how the subject of his complaint is brought within the four corners of the Vote, which relates to public works and buildings only.
  MR. GILHOOLY: The salaries of the officials concerned are included in the Vote.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The salaries are not included in this Vote.
  MR. GILHOOLY: But the offices in which the officials reside are included.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is a very ingenious proposition on the part of the hon. Member; but I do not think it would be in order to discuss the policy of a particular Department on the Vote for the building in which the Officials of the Department reside.
  Mr. HANBURYsaid it was impossible for him to master all the details of a somewhat confused and complicated Vote during the short time he had been in office, but he would see whether it was not possible to make the Vote in future a little more intelligible than it was. With reference to Wicklow Harbour, he pointed out that the Government were asking guarantees from the

  455
  adjoining baronies just in the same way as was done before. He was not sure whether the sum for the Boyne Navigation ought not to be withdrawn altogether. The sum of £1,000 was to be paid to the new company taking over the Boyne Navigation, and the money was to be applied to keeping that navigation in a proper state of repair. But the Boyne Navigation could not, as he understood, be transferred to the new company unless by Act. After all, these were small points. With regard to the larger question—how far there should be a permanent erection in Phœnix Park—he had not yet sufficient local knowledge to be able to give a satisfactory reply on that point, but undoubtedly before the next Session he should try to go over to Ireland, as he thought a Secretary of the Treasury ought to do, ["Hear, hear!"] and inform himself on this subject. He thought the answer he had given, covered nearly all the points raised. With regard to the Derry Central Railway scheme, he had nothing to do with that, but he understood it was settled by his predecessor. If the hon. Member would give him details he should be glad to give him, on the Report stage, all the information he might then possess. As to the police huts, he was asked how it came that an item for the Constabulary was to be found in this Vote at all. He saw, however, that the two preceding items were connected with the Constabulary; but perhaps the Chief Secretary would be able to give more information as to what these huts were devoted to. His predecessor put the items in this Vote. It was a small detail, but he should see that a satisfactory answer was given on the Report.
  Mr. G. MURNAGHANextolled the state of Ireland in regard to crime, and urged that the question as to the huts should be looked into.
  MR. POWERsaid, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would visit that part of the country he represented. If he did so he would ask him particularly to inquire into the position of the Naval Reserve Station at Tramore, in the County of Waterford, the condition of which was far from satisfactory.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, that no doubt his right hon. Friend would inquire into the question.
  456
  He only rose now, however, to say that as soon as this class of Votes was finished he should move the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. W. FIELDasked whether he had properly understood the Secretary to the Treasury to allude to Wicklow Harbour. He understood the Government had under consideration a grant for Wicklow Harbour. The sea had already done considerable damage to the harbour wall, and unless something was done before February the effect might be disastrous to the harbour.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, that the Government were perfectly prepared to make a new grant of £35,000 if it could be guaranteed from the adjoing baronies. In this part of Wicklow the rating was lower perhaps than in any other part of Ireland.>
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is all mountain by the sea shore.
  MR. HANBURYadded that the information given to him was that, in the case of Wicklow, the late Government offered that, if the joint baronies would guarantee the amount, it would be advanced on terms which would make but a slight addition to the very low rates; but that his predecessor refused to make an absolutely free grant.
  MR. JASPER TULLYsaid, it was his duty to call attention to one of those small matters which would not come before the House if there were local bodies in Ireland to deal with them. A sum of money had been voted for the removal of a shoal in the Shannon which obstructed navigation and exposed the people of that locality, Drumheriff, to great inconvenience; and the late Secretary to the Treasury promised that the matter would be taken in hand at once; but yet nothing had been done. The present Secretary to the Treasury told him yesterday that the delay was owing to the action of one the riparian owners; and he was anxious to find out who this was and what was the reason for blocking the work. It was a matter of considerable importance, because the district was a backward one, deficient in roads. Most of the locomotion was by water, and the shoal in question rendered two miles of the river unnavigable. This was a pressing matter to the people of his constituency and he therefore appealed to the hon. Gentleman to see

  457
  that the work was begun at once. One point in connection with the drainage of the Shannon he pressed on the former Secretary to the Treasury. To provide for traffic that was imaginary and did not exist, water was kept at a certain depth in a lock at Knockvicar, which was the outlet from Lough Key into the Shannon, and 600 acres of land were flooded in the adjoining district of Roscommon. A proper sluice should be erected to prevent floods which were causing so much damage.
  MR. J. JORDANhoped that the Treasury would spend some money in improvements in the North as well as in the South of Ireland.
  DR. KENNYthought that there ought to be no difficulty in the way of the right hon. Gentleman giving a full explanation of the various points that had been raised in reference to this Vote.
  MR. FLYNNalso hoped that if the right hon. Gentleman did not give a full explanation with regard to these constabulary huts on that occasion, he would be able to do so upon the Report. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that this matter of £900 for police huts was a small affair, but it represented a great principle, which went to the root of the land question in Ireland. A bad landlord simply represented that disturbances occurred in connection with the collection of rent, and a police hut was immediately built on his estate, in which two policemen were quartered. This represented a double tax—a charge on the taxpayer and a charge on the local ratepayer. Thus the cost of one hut, as it appeared on the Estimate, might represent ten times that amount on some district in Ireland. The progress of public business would largely depend on whether the First Lord of the Treasury would guarantee that before Report he would inquire into these matters, and that the Report stage should be taken at a fairly early hour of the evening. He wished to add his voice to the complaint of the hon. Member's for Dublin as to the encroachments on Phœnix Park. It was monstrous that the finest public park in the United Kingdom should be cut up by small sections of the community. It was a proceeding which would not be tolerated in respect of Hyde Park.
  458
  They were told that in Ireland now such things as derelict farms hardly existed, and, if so, why should they have this Vote?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, that if hon. Members would undertake to agree to the rest of the Vote without much further discussion, he might give an assurance such as was asked for. [Cries of dissent; and an hon. MEMBER: "It is a long Vote!"]
  MR. FIELDproposed that they should allow this Vote to pass, with the exception of the railway items, on condition that the Report stage was given to them at an early date. They had no desire to keep right hon. Members on the Front Bench, but they certainly wanted information on these points.
  MR. JASPER TULLYsaid, this was the only opportunity on which they could raise this matter, and there was a railway item which affected his constituency.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, that the railways which were dealt with were railways which affected the Treasury, but would throw no burden whatever on the constituency of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. T. M. HEALYreferred the right hon. Gentleman to page 71 of the Estimates.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, that if there was any widespread feeling on the matter he would, if this Vote was agreed to, move the Adjournment of the Debate.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday; Committee to sit again this day.

  KITCHEN COMMITTEE.
  THE PATRONAGE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir W. WALROND,)moved "That a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the Department of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House."
  Motion agreed to.
  On the Motion that Mr. James Bailey be a Member of the Committee—
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEcomplained that there was not a single Welsh Member nominated on the proposed Committee, and he moved the Adjournment of the Debate in order that the matter might be taken into consideration.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISseconded the Amendment.
  DR. KENNYsaid, he did not oppose the appointment of the Committee, but he did not think that, as at present constituted, it was representative of all parts of the House.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONsaid, that no Member representing Ulster was nominated on the Committee, and he certainly thought Ulster was as important as Wales.
  SIR W. WALRONDsaid, he had followed the ordinary course in the nomination of the Committee.
  DR. CLARKhoped this matter would be allowed to stand over. The ordinary practice hitherto had been to give a majority of one to the Government upon this Committee. For centuries the proportion of Members had been eight for the Government and seven for the Opposition. Now it was proposed to have a proportion of nine to six. That was hardly fair.
  Question put: "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 33; Noes, 142.—(Division List, No. 17.)
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESas emphasising the protest of his hon. Friend against the exclusion of any Welsh Member of the Committee, moved:—
  "That the name of Mr. James Bailey he omitted, with a view of appointing some hon. Gentleman from the Principality of Wales, whether sitting on the Opposition or on the Government side of the House."
  460
  He would suggest that the name of the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs be substituted for that of Mr. Bailey.
  MR SPEAKERsaid, it was not necessary for the hon. Member to move an Amendment to the name of Mr. Bailey in order to effect the object he had in view.
  MR. THOMAS ELLISwas sure that if the Committee were agreed to in the form proposed, to-morrow, he and the hon. Gentleman opposite could easily fix upon a name which would be accepted by the whole House.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGErose to speak, when
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Gentleman had already spoken.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Surely the hon. Gentleman can speak on a different name. Each name is a separate question.
  MR. SPEAKER: The only name that has been put is that of Mr. Bailey.
  DR. CLARKsaid, the appointment of the Committee was a purely formal matter. Surely the two Whips could easily arrange matters.
  Motion agreed to.
  Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Cochrane, Mr. Fellowes, Mr. Fenwick, General Goldsworthy, Mr. Jacoby, Mr. Kearley, Mr. Lafone, Mr. Llewellyn, Colonel Lock-wood, Mr. Macdona, Mr. P. J. Power, Lord Stanley, and Mr. Thomas Curran nominated other Members of the Committee.
  Ordered,—That three be the quorum.
  Whereupon,
  MR. SPEAKER,in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 19th August, adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at Ten minutes after One o'clock.