Commons Sitting of 27 August 1895

Preamble
The House met at Three of the Clock.

QUEEN'S SPEECH.
THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Lord ARTHUR HILL,)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:—
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your Thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament,"

SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM (ATTENDANTS AND MESSENGERS).
Return [presented 15th August] to be printed. [No. 433.]
LUNATIC ASYLUMS.
Return presented,—relative thereto [Address 25th April, 1895; Dr. Kenny]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 434.]
TUBERCULOSIS.
Return presented,—relative thereto (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 485, of Session 1893–4) [ordered 7th February, 1895; Mr. Knowles]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 435.]
LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (ENGLAND).
Copy presented of Parts III. (Municipal Borough Accounts, &c.); IV. (Accounts of Metropolitan Vestries and District Boards, &c.); V. (Accounts of Commissioners of Sewers, &c.); VI. (Accounts of Highway Authorities in Rural Districts and Turnpike Trustees); and VII. (Summary) [by Act]: to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 436.]

INCOME TAX.
Returned ordered,
"Of the Income Tax under Schedules A, B, and D of the gross amount of Property and Profits assessed in each county of Great Britain in each of the years from 1889–90 to 1894–5, both inclusive, compared with the totals in Abstract for each of the respective years from
882
1869–70 to 1874–5, and from 1879–80 to 1884–5, all inclusive, together with the duty charged under Income Tax and House Duty respectively in 1894–5 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 39, of Session 1892):
"And, of the like information for Ireland in each Surveyor's district so far as relates to Income Tax."—(Mr. Thomas Ellis.)

RAILWAYS (TIMES OF TRAINS).
Return ordered,
"For the months of June, July and August, 1895, from the Great Western, South Eastern, London, Chatham and Dover, London, Brighton and South Coast, and London and South Western Railway Companies, showing the arrival at London stations of all passenger trains from a distance of not less than 50 miles from starting point, as shown in the published time tables of the Company, in the form set out below:
"The Return to be compiled from the Guards' Reports or Journals; and London stations to mean, for the Great Western, Paddington; for the Chatham and Dover, Victoria, St. Paul's, and Holborn Viaduct; for the South Eastern, Cannon Street and Charing Cross; for the London, Brighton and South Coast, London Bridge and Victoria; and for the South Western, Waterloo:—

Percentage to time and 5 minutes late.

Percentage between 6 and 10 minutes late.

Percentage between 10 and 20 minutes late.

Percentage between 20 and 30 minutes late.

Percentage over 30 minutes late.

Total number of Trains.

(in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 210, of Session 1895)."—(Mr. Houston.)

NAVY (SEA-GOING WAR SHIPS, &c.).
Return ordered,
"Of Sea-going War Ships in Commission, in Reserve, and building, and showing the Naval expenditure, revenue, tonnage of Mercantile Marine, and value of sea-borne commerce of various countries for the year 1894:
"And, showing Naval expenditure on Sea-going force, the value of sea-borne commerce (exclusive of interchange with the United Kingdom), and the revenue of British self-governing colonies for the year 1894 (in continuation of Parliamentary Papers, No. 396, of Session 1890–91, and of No. 372, of Session 1893, and of No. 299, of Session 1894)."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (SENTENCES).
Address for—
"Return of all Sentences of Corporal Punishment inflicted under the 26th and 27th Vic., c. 44, upon persons convicted of offences against Section 43 of The Larceny Act, 1861, and Section 21 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861, in England and Wales, from the 27th day of February, 1894, in form set out (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 114, of Session 1894)."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)

INSPECTORS OF MEAT.
Address for—
"Return showing (1) the number of officials employed as Meat Inspectors in London, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Bolton, Birkenhead, Bradford, Blackpool, Hull, Nottingham, Derby, Portsmouth, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Paisley, Perth and Greenock; (2) date of their appointment; (3) qualifications for appointment; (4) vocation prior to receiving appointment; and (5) whether such officials act as Meat Inspectors only, or hold any office of emolument in a department other than that supervised by the Medical Officer of Health."—(Mr. field.)

QUESTIONS.

  BELFAST POST OFFICE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the recent promotions in the Telegraph Department of the Belfast Post Office, will he explain why three members of that Department, with services of 29, 25, and 23 years respectively, have been superseded by juniors with service of under 11 years; and upon how many
  884
  different occasions have these men respectively been so treated; whether he is aware that, in respect of the senior of these men, it is alleged that a compact was entered into, in consequence of which he was induced to continue his services to the Crown on the occasion of the transfer of the telegraphs to the State, and that this man in the early days of the Service, at a difficult time, rendered efficient service to the Department as a capable telegraphist, and that he holds an unblemished character; and that, as regards the other two, these men have at all times duly performed the duties which they have been called upon to perform; and, whether he will state what steps will be taken to safe guard in the future the interests of these men?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): These three officers have been superseded on several occasions because they were not fit for promotion. No compact was entered into with the senior of these men in consequence of which he was induced to continue his services to the Crown on the acquisition of the telegraphs by the State.

  LIMERICK POST OFFICE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that there are a large number of auxiliary sorting clerks employed at the Limerick Post Office, all of whom have spent between four and five years in the service of the Department, during which period they have given every satisfaction in the performance of their duties, but will be compelled to relinquish their employment with the Post Office owing to their inability to qualify in the new programme of educational examination for sorting clerks' appointments, which only became necessary on the 1st of June 1895; and, in consequence of their long absence of over six years from school and lengthened connection with the Department, will he prevail upon the Civil Service Commissioners to issue the old examination papers to those deserving officers when they are about being placed on the Establishment?
  MR. HANBURY: The case of the auxiliary sorters in question is now under the consideration of the Post Office Committee of Inquiry, to whom they have appealed, and the hon. Member may rest satisfied that justice will be done.

  RAW-GRAINED WHISKY.
  MR. J. M'KILLOP: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether his attention has been directed to the inferior quality of whisky sold in Scotland, known as raw-grained; and, whether more stringent inspection could be made whereby whisky of a matured character should be sold, in the interests of the consuming public.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SIR M. HICKS BEACH,): I am afraid the remedy suggested by the hon. Member of more stringent inspection would not be of any effect. The Revenue authorities have no power to exercise any supervision over the materials used by distillers, or to prevent spirits being sold under a certain age. This matter was recently very carefully considered by a strong Committee in 1891, who reported that it is not desirable to pass any compulsory law with regard to age. This opinion of the Committee, of course, applied to foreign spirits as well as to British spirits; but I have some reason to think that the harm done by the sale of immature spirit is principally due to cheap foreign spirit, and not to spirit distilled in Scotland, which, in the opinion of the Revenue authorities, is, as a rule, of a good and improving quality.

  LEENANE TELEGRAPH STATION, GALWAY.
  MR. W. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, as to the cause of the delay in establishing a telegraph station at Leenane, Connemara, Galway?
  MR. HANBURY: The legal formalities in this case have necessarily occupied some time. The deeds are at present in the hands of the guarantors for signature, and, as soon as they are
  886
  returned duly executed, the Postmaster General will give directions for the extension to be proceeded with as quickly as possible.

  GORTMORE PIER, COUNTY GALWAY.
  MR. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, will he explain the cause of the delay in constructing a pier at Gortmore, near Cong, county of Galway, seeing that the Congested Districts Board have some five years ago voted a sum of money for such work, and that on two or three occasions tenders were invited for the erection of the proposed pier?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Tenders for this work were called for in 1893 and 1894, but were not considered satisfactory. The difficulty in obtaining a satisfactory tender may have been largely due to the remoteness of the locality, but, as there is a bridge now in course of construction in the vicinity, the Congested Districts Board hope to receive a more favourable offer for the erection of the pier and to carry on both works conjointly.

  ARMY FORAGE SUPPLY.
  MR. W. RAYMOND GREENE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether a certain percentage of foreign imported forage is supplied for the consumption of the horses of Her Majesty's Forces; and whether in future forage contracts Her Majesty's Government will still reduce the quantity supplied, and substitute home-produced forage therefor?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Forage is contracted for according to standards of quality without reference to sources of supply, and it is not known what percentage may be of foreign growth. I may state, however, that in ordinary years the hay and straw has been mainly of home growth. With a view to encouraging local supply, arrangements have, in certain cases, been made for

  887
  purchasing forage locally, instead of from contractors. The extension of this system will be considered.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: How is the hon. Gentleman able to say that the hay and straw is home grown, since he has no means of ascertaining its origin? [Laughter.]
  MR. BRODRICK: The Reports at our disposal point to the fact that a considerable amount of hay arid straw is produced in this country.

  HANGING OF ENGLISH TRADER IN CONGO STATE.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what sort of trial was given to the English trader Stokes, lately hanged by the Belgians in Central Africa; and, what are the charges against him?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): Her Majesty's Government have not yet received any reply from the Belgian Government to their inquiries about the circumstances attending the execution of the British trader Stokes; and I am not therefore in a position to give the hon. Member any authoritative information on the two points raised in his question. But Her Majesty's Government regard the case as one of much importance, and are pressing for an early answer.

  POLICE PROTECTION HUTS IN COUNTY MONAGHAN.
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, how many police protection huts or stations exist in the county Monaghan; and the respective dates upon which these huts or stations were established; and the cost per annum of each hut or station; and, in view of the almost total absence of crime, ordinary or agrarian, in the above-mentioned county, can he give the assurance that these huts or any of them shall soon be withdrawn?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There are two police protection posts in this county, one of which was established in March, 1887, and the other in May,
  888
  1889. The annual cost of each of these posts is about £136, no portion of which, however, is charged to the county. The men employed at these posts are engaged in affording personal protection to caretakers, and cannot be withdrawn as long as such protection is considered necessary. Crime, both ordinary and agrarian, is undoubtedly low in Monaghan, but these two huts were erected for a specific purpose, namely, the personal protection of caretakers, and until the necessity for such protection has passed away the huts must remain.
  MR. FLYNN: Does that include the pay of policemen?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I understand that that is so.

  RIFLE RANGE, COUNTY MONAGHAN.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if the negotiations for securing a rifle range at Rossmore Park, county Monaghan, have been broken off; and if so, would he consider the advisability of renewing them in the interest of the Military Service; is he aware that the proposed range at Rossmore possessed exceptional advantages in offering a ground on which practice could be continued in all weathers without those drawbacks which affect ranges on the seashore; also that there is a never-failing supply of good water on the range, and that the ground is peculiarly suited for the erection of huts or buildings to accommodate troops; and, if he will give further consideration to this important matter before finally resolving to abandon the scheme?
  MR. BRODRICK: A site for a rifle range in Rossmore Park was offered to the military authorities in Ireland last year; but, after careful examination of the ground, they did not consider that it offered such advantages as to render its acquisition desirable. The provision of a range is being considered.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Was it on the ground of price?
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir, it was not on the ground of price, but of the unsuitability of the rifle range.

  H. M. N. "JACKAL" BOAT ACCIDENT.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether his attention has been called to the boat accident which occurred a few hundred yards off the shore at Dornoch on the 21st May, whereby two of the crew of Her Majesty's Gunboat Jackal lost their lives; whether he is aware that on the morning of the 21st May the Jackal anchored off the Dornoch Rocks, and that the Captain, Doctor, Paymaster, and First Officer came on shore to play golf, this being the fourth day between 5th and 21st May inclusive they had spent golfing on the Dornoch Links: whether he is aware that the accident took place whilst one of the ship's small boats was on its way to convey the Captain to the Jackal at the close of the day; and, whether any compensation will be paid to the widow and relatives of the men who lost their lives?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,): An official report was received from Her Majesty's ship Jackal relative to the capsizing of one of her boats off Dornoch on May 21st last, and the regrettable loss of two lives consequent thereon. The Jackal anchored off the Dornoch Rocks on May 21st, and I believe that some of the officers landed during the afternoon for recreation. The accident took place whilst one of the ship's gigs was on its way to the shore, to convey the Lieutenant commanding the Jackal on board his ship. One of the two men drowned left a widow and one child, and, in accordance with the Queen's regulations and Admiralty instructions, the widow has been granted a pension of 3s. 6d. a week, and an allowance of 1s. 6d. a week for her child. The other man was not married, and appears not to have had any relatives dependent upon him, so that no gratuity has been paid.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked the cause of the capsizing of the boat.
  MR. MACARTNEYreplied, that it seemed to have been accidental and not due to any negligence. Full inquiry would be made into the circumstances.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the sheet was fast, and whether the capsizing of sailing boats was not frequently due to making the sheet fast?
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that in the report that circumstance was not referred to, but if the hon. Member desired it, further inquiries would be made.

  ILLEGAL TRAWLING.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, seeing Her Majesty's ship Reynard was stationed at Stornoway during the month of June, he will state why she only visited Loch Roag on 27th June last in response to complaints of illegal trawling, made by the fishermen of the Bernera district of the Island of Lewis, on the 8th and 9th of that month?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir CHARLES PEARSON,): I am informed by the Fishery Board that during the month of June last complaints of illegal trawling in the North and West of Scotland were very numerous, and between 6th and 24th of June the Reynard visited, by special instructions, the following places—namely: Applecross, Glendale (twice), and Kyle of Durness, Sutherlandshire. The vessel proceeded to Loch Roag immediately on her return from Kyle of Durness, where she had been ordered to proceed on 17th June after she had returned from Glendale.

  BALLINTORE HARBOUR.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, seeing that the Scotch Fishery Board act entirely upon the reports of their own engineers, who were the constructors of the Ballintore Harbour, which is now found to be in an unsatisfactory and dangerous condition, steps will be taken to procure the report of an independent engineer?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: The engineers for the Ballintore Harbour were selected by Local Trustees, and the design and estimate was decided on by them, and approved by the Fishery Board. These engineers were Messrs. Stevenson. They are also the advisers of the Fishery Board, who have full confidence in them, and it is not proposed to call in other advisers. I am informed by the Fishery Board that there is no evidence that the harbour is in a dangerous condition as a shelter for fishing boats and vessels, and that they now

  891
  consider the work as completed according to design. If the trustees dispute the fact, they should apply, according to the statute, to the Sheriff of the county for a completion certificate.

  WESTERN HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS WORKS ACT.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state how much of the grant made under the Western Highlands and Islands Works Act remains unexpended to date?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: The portion of the grant remaining unexpended up to date is £9,083. 15s.

  RIVER SUCK DRAINAGE LOAN.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether during the Recess he will take into consideration the propriety of reducing the rate of interest charged on the River Suck Drainage Loan, in proportion to the reduced rate now paid for money by the Government as compared with that which existed when the loan was made, and thereby mitigate the heavy charge which it is proposed to levy upon the occupiers of land on the improvement area of the river?
  MR. HANBURY: The tenants in question pay an annuity for 40 years, representing the increased value of their lands due to the drainage works. The rate of interest covered by this annuity was fixed only five years ago by the River Suck Drainage (Provision of Funds) Act, 1890, at 3¼ per cent., and I have no power to alter it. The hon. Member is of course aware that the tenants have been materially benefited by a free grant of £50,000 sanctioned by the same Act.

  TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will bring in a Bill next Session to promote and endow technical education in Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is true that the amount expended on technical instruction in Ireland is small
  892
  compared with that expended in England, and the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that, whereas both England and Scotland elected that their respective shares of the Customs and Excise Duties should be applied to the purposes of technical education, Ireland elected to spend her share in other ways. The question, as it affects Ireland, is, therefore, rather one of funds, and I cannot undertake to introduce legislation on the subject in the next Session of Parliament without inquiring fully into the matter, as I shall do, during the Recess.

  ARMY PAY OFFICE, NAAS.
  DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he will explain on what ground certain pensioners employed in the pay office at Naas have been deprived of their lodging allowance, and compelled to live in barrack, and an appeal against this decision was refused to be forwarded; and if an inquiry will be held into the complaint of the pensioners in the matter?
  MR. BRODRICK: This was a purely local routine matter, and was settled in the station where it occurred. Inquiry shows that on two quarters in barracks becoming available two pensioner sergeants were directed to occupy them, which made a saving on the local expenditure for lodging allowances. There were appeals which were disposed of locally, which is the proper course in matters of this character.

  TEMPLEMORE PETTY SESSIONS, COUNTY TIPPERARY.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether his attention has been called to a decision of the Court of Petty Sessions at Templemore, County Tipperary, on 22nd August, committing Mr. Rody Gleeson, an evicted tenant on the estate of Sir John C. Carden, to one month's imprisonment for preventing Sir John Carden's steward effecting a sale at Templemore Fair of a number of sheep which had been grazed on Mr. Gleeson's evicted farm; (2) whether he is aware that the steward admitted under cross-examination that Mr. Gleeson did not threaten

  893
  him or attempt any violence, and that his interference was limited to remarking to the bystanders that these sheep ought to be good, they were grazed on his evicted farm; (3) whether he is aware that the steward's evidence in this respect was corroborated by other witnesses; and (4) whether under these circumstances he will institute an immediate inquiry into the legality of the magisterial decision?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The prosecution referred to in the Question was an application to the magistrates to exercise the powers conferred upon them by their Commission, as well as by a Statute of Edward III., to require Gleeson to give sureties to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour. The steward admitted that Gleeson had not threatened him personally, but that by his action on the occasion he prevented the sale of the sheep, and that if it had not been for Gleeson's action he would have sold the sheep. On cross-examination he swore that Gleeson remained beside the sheep for three hours, and that during that time he spoke to each intending buyer, using words to the effect stated in the Question, and followed each intending buyer till he went away. The evidence of the steward that Gleeson, by his conduct, had prevented the sale of the sheep, was corroborated by other witnesses. The magistrates unanimously made an order calling upon the defendant to give sureties to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour; but this he has declined to do, and has elected to go to prison for a month. With regard to the concluding paragraph, there seems no doubt whatever about the legality of the magistrates' decision, but if the defendant is so advised he can apply to the Queen's Bench Division to review this decision.
  MR. FLYNNasked whether a Statute of Edward III. had not been revived for the purposes of these proceedings, or whether he was to understand that the overt act committed was that he said these sheep were fed on his land, and under these circumstances the man had been sent to prison?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the Statute referred to had never been abrogated, and was constantly used by his predecessor.
  MR. FLYNNrepeated his question as to the overt act, and asked whether the steward did not admit that the man used no violence or intimidation?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There was no violence, but, as I have shown, there was a clear act of boycotting.
  MR. JAMES DALYasked whether this unfortunate tenant would be afforded means to carry his case to the Court of Queen's Bench?

  COLONIAL LITERATURE FOR THE BRITISH MUSEUM.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having reference to the donations of Colonial literature recorded at page 26 of the last Annual Report of the Keeper of Printed Books in the British Museum, he is aware that the large and valuable collection of Colonial publications in the Library of the Museum is much in need of classification; and whether, with a view to facilitating the work of the large and increasing number of readers engaged in the study of Colonial subjects, he will suggest to the governing authorities the advisability of compiling a complete sectional catalogue of the books, periodicals, and publications relating to the British Colonies and Dependencies?
  MR. HANBURY: I understand that Colonial books and periodicals are treated exactly like home publications, and that Colonial official documents are systematically arranged, and can be produced on application to the superintendent of the reading-room, even if they have not actually been entered in the catalogue. The compilation of a complete sectional catalogue as suggested would at present seriously interrupt still more pressing work, but the proposal will be considered along with others as soon as the printing of the general catalogue is completed, which will probably be in three years' time. ["Hear, hear!"]

  CENTRAL QUEENS LAND.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that, on the creation of the Colony of Queensland, the right of constituting new Colonies in the central and northern divisions, when the growth

  895
  of population and settlement would render such a proceeding necessary and advisable, was expressly reserved by the Crown; and, whether he will take into his favourable consideration during the Recess the memorials and representations of the inhabitants of Central Queensland with respect to the grievances under which they allege themselves to be suffering in consequence of the continuance of this governmental system?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN,): The hon. Member is mistaken as to the reservation of powers to the Crown. The Colony of Queensland was separated from New South Wales under the authority of an Act of Parliament; but Parliament has not yet authorised Her Majesty to subdivide the Colony of Queensland. I think it is premature at present to propose any legislation for the purpose. ["Hear, hear!"].

  INDIAN PRISON MADE GOODS.
  MR. T. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether a remonstrance has been addressed by the Government to Foreign Powers, against the practice of sending brushes and other articles made in prisons to this country; whether there is a considerable manufacture of carpets in prisons in India, and whether this manufacture is fostered and encouraged by the Government, and what the annual value of the carpets so made is; whether these carpets are freely exported to European countries; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to suppress this competition with free labour in this important Trade?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The manufacture of carpets in prisons in India has for some years past been sanctioned by the Government of India, but there are no statistics to show to what extent the manufacture is now carried on, what the value of the carpets so made is, or the number exported to European countries. An inquiry can be made of the Government of India on these points if the hon. Gentleman wishes it. In 1885 the Secretary of State sent instructions to the
  896
  Government of India that gaol manufactures should, as far as possible, be confined to articles adapted for use by other public departments; but he added—
  "It is not, of course, intended to preclude gaols from special industries, such as carpet-making, which have been found suitable as a means of employing convict labour, but for which there is practically no market in the department of Government."
  ["Hear, hear!"].
  MR. LOUGHasked, whether the noble Lord would kindly mention one or two of the other articles still made in Indian gaols and exported to foreign countries, and would furnish a return on the subject?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman would specify the articles with respect to which he desired information, he would make inquiries and see whether he could furnish the return asked for. ["Hear, hear!"].

  IRISH MAGISTRATE CONVICTED OF ASSAULT.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) has the attention of the Lord Chancellor been called to the conviction of Major M'Farlane, J. P., at the last Dundrum petty sessions, for assaulting his servant on 8th August; (2) whether he is aware that four or five years ago the same defendant was convicted of assaulting a solicitor named Davis; and that he was also arrested in Rathmines, within the past two years, and convicted of another offence; and, (3) is it intended that Major M'Farlane shall retain Her Majesty's Commission as Justice of the Peace
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Lord Chancellor informs me that when his attention was drawn by a Press report to the conviction referred to in the first paragraph, he at once requested Major M'Farlane to furnish him with an explanation. An appeal has been entered by this gentleman against the decision of the magistrates, and the Lord Chancellor awaits its determination before deciding what further action it may be necessary for him to take in the matter.

  FAIR RENT APPLICATIONS, IRELAND.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) how the Irish Land Commission propose to secure that the judgments in fair rent applications listed for hearing before Sub-Commissions between now and next year will be postponed pending the passing of the proposed Land Bill; (2) whether they intend to give directions for the purpose to the Sub-Commissioners; and, (3) whether it has hitherto been the practice for the Land Commission to give directions to Sub-Commissioners as regards cases coming before them judicially.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: What I understand the Land Commission to have in contemplation is the issuing of instructions to the Sub-Commissioners to postpone judgment in the cases referred to in the first paragraph of the hon. and learned Member's question. I cannot regard this as an interference with the judicial functions of the Sub-Commissioners, as seems to be implied in the last paragraph of the question. ["Hear!"]

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES IN IRELAND.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether it is the practice of the Local Government Board for Ireland, to require local authorities who have acquired land under Section 57, Sub-section 1, of The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, specifically for the purpose of Part III. of the Act, to obtain the consent of the Treasury under Section 57, Sub-section 3, to the appropriation of the land for the purpose for which it has been acquired; (2) whether he is aware that the English Local Government Board consider that no consent is necessary in cases of the kind; (3) whether the Irish Board consider that the consent is necessary even where the land has been acquired compulsorily under the statutory powers given for that express purpose; and, (4) how the land in such cases is to be disposed of in case the Treasury refuse their consent?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This question has been already answered both by the Attorney-General for Ireland and by the Secretary to the
  898
  Treasury, and I have nothing to add to those answers, except that with reference to the fourth part of the question, no such case has arisen. As the hon. Member has already been informed, communications are being made between the Treasury and the Irish Local Government Board, with a view to establishing uniformity of practice in the two countries.

  COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) ACT 1890,
  MR. H. D. GREENE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether the General Annual Report for the year 1894 of all matters judicial and financial within The Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, has been prepared as required by Section 29; and, when the same will be laid before both Houses of Parliament?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The materials for the Report are nearly all collected, and the Report itself—which needs careful preparation, will be finished at the earliest possible moment. I am unable to give any undertaking as to the precise time when it will be laid before Parliament. There has undoubtedly been some delay, but this was caused by the extra work thrown upon the Department by the Committee on Public Acts.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he saw his way to the adoption of the draft Bill suggested by the Companies' Act (Amendment) Committee appointed by the Board of Trade?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the whole matter was under his careful consideration, but he was sure that his hon. Friend would see that it was impossible for him to make any announcement on the subject at the present moment.

  RULE OF THE ROAD AT SEA.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN -POWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he proposes to take any steps to appoint, this Session, a Select Committee on the Rule of the Road at Sea (Fog Signals), in continuation of the Committee ap

  899
  pointed last Session, with a view to a Report being made on the evidence then acquired; if this is not practicable, can he now state that no new regulations, altering the existing fog signals, will be promulgated until such a Committee has been appointed, and has reported on the said evidence; and, will it be possible, during the Recess, to have a statement drawn up summarising for, say the last 10 years, the ascertained causes of collisions at sea which took place in fog, falling snow, or heavy rain squalls?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, what course Her Majesty's Government propose to take with regard to the Select Committee on a portion of the Rule of the Road at Sea relating to sound signals, appointed on 25th March last, and which, after sitting till 3rd July last, separated without making any final Report; whether the Departmental Committee on another portion of the Rule of the Road at Sea, relating to the screening of side-lights, has yet reported; if not, when it is expected to report, and whether the Report and evidence will be laid upon the Table; and, whether any opportunity will be afforded either to this House or to shipowners and shipmasters of considering the Reports of these two Committees before any steps are taken by the Board of Trade to cause the issue of any Order in Council dealing with these two portions of the Rule of the Road at Sea?
  MR. RITCHIE: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the question of the hon. Member for King's Lynn at the same time. I regret to say that it has been found impossible, owing to the absence of Members of the Committee, to re-appoint the Committee referred to this Session. I hope, however, to be in a position to move the re-appointment at the earliest possible moment next Session. Meanwhile no Order in Council on the subject will be issued. I am informed that the Departmental Committee on the Screening of Side-lights expects to be able to Report before the end of the year. That Report and the Report of the Parliamentary Committee (if re-appointed) will be carefully considered before action is taken; but my hon. Friend will understand that it is impossible for me to come under the undertaking he asks before seeing the Reports
  900
  in question. With regard to the causes of collisions, they will be found for each year in Table 61 of the Wreck Register.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would at least undertake not to issue Orders in Council with regard to these Rules when Parliament was not sitting and when attention could not consequently be called to the subject?
  MR. RITCHIE: Until I see the Report of the Committee I cannot give any guarantee. The cause of the collisions are all set out in the Return, but if the hon. Member is not satisfied with the Return, I will endeavour to satisfy him.

  ROYALTIES ON GOLD.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in some instances in North Wales 1 per cent. royalty is charged upon gold, in some instances 3⅓ per cent., in some instances 6⅔ per cent., and in some instances a sliding scale varying from 1½ per cent, to 10 per cent.; whether in Ireland the Crown is levying 5 per cent., whilst in Scotland, in the case of the Duke of Sutherland, they levy 10 per cent.; why there is no uniformity with regard to royalties on gold; whether Her Majesty's Government are taking any steps to send to Wales a practical man, so that he may advise the Crown as to the area of the Welsh gold-field, and what course they should adopt with a view to encouraging the development of the industry; and whether Her Majesty's Government will also send a practical man to Ireland and Scotland to report to the Government upon the existence of payable gold in both those countries?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The general rule which prevails in Wales as to royalty is 1–15th in Crown lands and l–30th in private lands, where the landowner or his nominee is the Crown lessee of the gold. All the lessees have the option of a sliding scale graduated according to the yield of the ore from l–70th in Crown lands and 1–100th in private lands upwards. I think the only exceptions to this are the mine formerly owned by the hon. Member in Wales, where the royalty is 1–100th till April 5, 1898, and l–50th thereafter; and another mine in Ireland, formerly

  901
  leased by the hon. Member, where the same rate was granted. This is the only lease existing in Ireland. The rate in the case of the Duke of Sutherland in Scotland, as I explained a few days back, was fixed three centuries ago by statute. I shall be very glad to consider whether it is possible to introduce greater uniformity. There will, for instance, be, I think, no difficulty in arranging for working as one concern adjoining sets which are liable to different rates of royalty; but from the number of applications now coming in for take-notes and licences at the present rates of royalty it does not appear that the industry is hampered by existing regulations. The Commissioners of Woods fully recognise the existence of a very extensive goldfield in Wales, and the question how the area can be best defined is at present under their careful consideration, as is the question of the desirability of obtaining reports by experts, but, as at present advised, it is not contemplated to send a practical expert to Ireland or Scotland.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGANsaid, that he should like to remove from the right hon. Gentleman's mind the idea that he was not interested in this subject, because he owned nearly half the property concerned, and was therefore entitled to some voices in the matter. He would ask whether gold was not as much the property of the Crown in principle as the Crown lands, and why uniformity of royalties did not exist?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The 10 per cent. gold royalty in Scotland is fixed by statute, and the Crown has, therefore, no power to alter it. In Ireland there is only one mining lease at an extremely low rate of royalty, which was granted to the hon. Member himself. If there are any other applications with regard to Ireland they will be considered. I am now considering whether greater uniformity in the amount of royalties cannot be attained, and if it can be I shall be glad, but the want of uniformity is not as great as the hon. Member suggests.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in office was not considering this question of uniformity of royalty in 1890?
  [No answer was given to this question.]

  MERCANTILE MARINE OFFICERS AND THE NAVY.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty—(1) whether the scheme for introducing officers of the Mercantile Marine into the Navy, as set forth in the London Gazette of 26th July last, will, if carried into effect, result in the Sub-Lieutenants from 22 to 25 years of age to be so introduced receiving higher pay and allowance than the Sub-Lieutenants who have entered in the usual manner by joining the Britannia at or about the age of 13, and who are now serving in the Navy; (2) whether the Lieutenants from 25 to 35 years of age to be so introduced will be put over the heads of the Sub-Lieutenants now serving in the Navy; (3) whether both the Sub-Lieutenants and the Lieutenants to be thus introduced will be placed under the same conditions of retirement and pension as the Sub-Lieutenants and Lieutenants now serving; and, if not, what differences will be made between these and those; (4) and, whether, before adopting this scheme, Her Majesty's Government took into consideration the advisability of promoting to Lieutenant's rank a sufficient number of the Sub-Lieutenants, and of the deserving and capable Warrant Officers now serving; and, if so, on what grounds this method of filling up the Lietenants' List was rejected in favour of that adopted?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,),who was very indistinctly heard, was understood to say that the officers introduced from the Mercantile Marine into the Royal Navy would not receive higher pay and allowances than the Sub-Lieutenants of the Navy, except in so far that they would receive 1s. a day for mess allowances. With regard to the third question of the hon. Member, the system of retirement pensions granted to the Sub-Lieutenants and Lieutenants now serving in the Navy was infinitely more favourable than that which would accrue to the officers introduced from the Mercantile Marine. He believed the difference was as much as £100 a year in favour of the officers now serving. Of course, the Lieutenants introduced from the Mercantile Marine would take seniority above the Sub-Lieutenants now serving in the Navy. Before the adoption of the scheme the Government

  903
  took into consideration every possible alternative, and the whole matter was thoroughly threshed out before the decision was arrived at. With regard to the promotion of Sub-Lieutenants, their time of serving before they received promotion had now been reduced to what was considered a minimum.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether it was not the fact that by the order in the London Gazette the Lieutenants and Sub-Lieutenants who would be thus introduced into the Navy would be granted an equipment allowance of £40 and £30 respectively, while no such equipment allowance was given to Lieutenants and Sub-Lieutenants in the Navy. With regard to the question of retirement, he wished to know whether, although the mercantile officers retired with a smaller sum, they did not retire under much more favourable circumstances than the right hon. Gentleman had stated, and whether the difference in pay of the Mercantile Marine Sub-Lieutenants and the naval Sub-Lieutenants was not 2s. a day to the benefit of the mercantile officers?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that his informamation was not the same as that of his hon. Friend, but he would make further inquiry. He had been informed that all the circumstances were much in favour of the Lieutenants and Sub-Lieutenants now serving. The scheme had been adopted in order to satisfy a temporary emergency in regard to the number of Lieutenants, and terms must be offered to the mercantile service which would attract the best men from that service?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERasked whether appointments had been made or were in contemplation?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid that appointments were in immediate contemplation, and he was glad to say that there were applications from officers in the Royal Naval Reserve who had already served in Her Majesty's ships.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to the matter on the Estimates. [Cheers.]

  EMPLOYMENT OF DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, under which Vote (Army Estimates)
  904
  the allowance to the Association for the Employment of Discharged Soldiers is taken?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): The sum in aid of the Association referred to forms part of the £2,375 taken in Item "G" of Vote 12.

  CARDIFF CUSTOM HOUSE.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if, having regard to the time that must necessarily elapse before the erection of the new Custom House at Cardiff, and the consequent great inconvenience that will be suffered by merchants and shippers at Cardiff, his Department will secure temporary offices at the Bute Docks for the transaction of ships' business relating to inward clearances, passing entries for inward cargoes, passing entries for bonded goods (United Kingdom), clearance outwards, payment of light and town dues, and registration charges of masters, pending the erection of the now building?
  MR. HANBURY: I hope that it may be possible to proceed with the new building at no distant date, but, meanwhile, I do not think that the Government can fairly be expected to incur the further expense of providing the temporary accommodation as suggested, in addition to the present offices.

  WAR OFFICE REORGANISATION.
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he can give a date for the taking of the Army Estimates; and whether any opportunity will be given, during the present Session, of discussing the statement made by the Secretary of State with respect to the reorganisation of the War Office?
  SIR W. HARCOURTwho was received with loud cheers, said: Before this question is answered, I wish to put to the Government a question on a matter of great consequence affecting our proceedings. I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether it is in accordance with what I have always understood to be

  905
  the practice of the House of Commons, that a statement of a very important change in the administration of the Army—[Cheers]—perhaps as important a change as has ever been proposed—should have been made in the other House of Parliament, and not made simultaneously in the House of Commons. [Cheers.] The House of Commons has a right that the statement should be made here at least as soon as—[An hon. MEMBER: "Sooner!"]—it is made in the other House, and that we should not have to learn from a newspaper the course which the Government are about to take in matters of that kind? [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman is correct in his statement. I should have thought that the right of the administration of the Department of the Government concerned to make the statement in the House to which he belongs, has never been questioned. I may, however, say that it was largely for the convenience of this House that the statement in question was made by my noble Friend, the Secretary of State for War. It would not have been in accordance with our rules to make a statement of that kind in this House until the Estimates affecting the Department came on for consideration. It is, moreover, inconvenient for a Minister to get up and make a statement of policy in the midst of other business. No doubt my hon. Friend, the Under Secretary for War, will make a statement when the Army Estimates come on; but if the statement referred to had not been made as it has, there would have been no general knowledge of the scheme, and the result would have been that hon. Members would have entered upon a discussion of the Army Estimates, much less well equipped than they are now. Therefore, without dealing with the general question of comity between the two Houses of Parliament, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the Government have been animated in this case by the convenience of the House to which we belong. [Cheers.]
  SIR CHARLES DILKEpointed out that the Government were asked last week whether they could make a statement on the subject.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Under Secretary will make a statement on the War Office Vote, but I think that the statement made yesterday in the other House will place right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in a better position to discuss the subject when it comes on here.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERpointed out that his question remained unanswered.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY,who replied to the question, said: I cannot state the exact date when the Army Estimates will be taken, because I do not know how fast we are going to proceed with those Estimates which remain between this and the Army Estimates, but I shall endeavour to come to some arrangement, both for hastening business and also for knowing when the Army Estimates will come on.
  DR. TANNERasked whether hon. Members would be furnished with a copy of the statement of the Secretary of State for War?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not know whether the "Hansard" Report of yesterday's proceedings will be published before the discussion on the Army Estimates comes on in this House, but, if it is not, the hon. Member can obtain the statement by purchasing a copy of The Times.
  MR. T. M. HEALYinquired whether the convenience of hon. Members who were discussing the Civil Service Estimates was to be sacrificed for the convenience of those more particularly interested in the Army Estimates.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYreplied that he did not say that their convenience was to be sacrificed.

  PARCEL POST TO JAPAN.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the negotiations with the Government of Japan for the conclusion of a Parcel Post Convention with that country, which were referred to (in an answer to a question on the subject) by the late Postmaster General on the 16th of February last in this House, have been successful; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay?
  MR. HANBURY: The answer to the main question is yes, and a draft convention is under consideration; but it will be evident to the House that in the case of so distant a country as Japan, the settlement of details necessarily takes time.

  LONDON AND PARIS TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General—(1) whether he can state the annual revenue and expenditure in connection with the telephone service between London and Paris; (2) whether the telephone is used only, or almost exclusively, in business hours, and is idle for 16 hours out of the 24; and, (3) whether he can see his way to make the rate charged 2s. 6d. for three minutes' conversation, instead of 3s. as at present.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General regrets that he is not in a position to give the information asked for in the first paragraph. The use of the telephone is by no means restricted to what are commonly called the business hours of the day. The present charge for a conversation of three minutes is 8s., not 3s. It is a subject of international agreement, and the Postmaster General does not see his way at present to propose any reduction.

  FOREIGN-MADE PAPER.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, in order to prevent foreign paper being sold as English, he will initiate legislation under which every sheet of foreign paper shall have a water-mark of origin, and each roll of foreign paper be similarly marked every square yard.
  MR. RITCHIE: As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the Select Committee of 1890 reported against the compulsory marking of all goods with the indication of origin. As at present advised, I am not prepared to depart from the position taken up by the Committee.

  VACCINATION IN IRELAND.
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he
  908
  can state the total sums expended on vaccination in Ireland from June 1893 to June 1894, and for a similar period from 1894 to 1895; and, what increase, if any, has been created by the smallpox scare.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The information desired by the hon. Member is not in the possession of the Local Government Board, and could only be obtained by communicating with the Clerk of each Poor Law Union in Ireland.

  FORGERY IN FRANCE OF BRITISH PATENT MEDICINE STAMPS.
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government will present to the House any correspondence relating to the wholesale forgery, in France, of the labels of makers of patent medicines, and of patent medicine stamps, and the consequent loss entailed upon the British revenue and upon British manufactures.
  MR. CURZON: The attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the forgeries referred to in my hon. Friend's question. They are fully aware of the importance of the subject, and representations have been addressed to the French Government with a view to the prosecution of the offenders. There has been some delay, but we cannot doubt that the French Government will carry out their legal and Treaty obligations, pending which result it would not be advisable to present correspondence to the House.

  IRISH OATS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he has received a letter, written by a member of an extensive firm of Irish oat exporters, which states that, owing to the large stocks of old oats remaining in merchants' hands, and unsaleable except under cost, new oats will probably have to be sold at much under the lowest average touched for the past 25 years; and (2) whether he will cause inquiry to be made in the matter; and, should this forecast prove correct, will he take any steps to give temporary relief to Irish farmers?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have received a letter which the hon. Gentleman has been good enough to send to me, containing the statement made in the first paragraph of the question. This forecast, as I stated yesterday in reply to the hon. Member's question on the subject, is necessarily of a speculative character, and even if it proved correct I could not undertake to introduce a measure of the kind indicated.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask, whether the facts mentioned in this question, together with the low price of butter and the disastrous harvest weather in Ireland, would not justify the right hon. Gentleman in affording some temporary relief to Irish farmers?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir; I am afraid not.

  INDIAN COTTON DUTIES.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the decided expression of opinion of the House of Commons on 21st February, on the subject of the Indian Cotton Duties, he will promise that the Duties shall not be repealed until the House has again had an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the subject?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that nothing in connection with these Duties will be done hastily or surreptitiously. The vote given on the 21st of February last may fairly be interpreted as giving a sanction to the imposition of these Duties; but that approval was obtained on a distinct undertaking from the then Secretary of State for India that the Duties should in no sense whatever be of a protective character. Since that Debate the Duties in Burma on yarns of 20 and under have been reduced by the executive action of the Government of India from 5 per cent. to ½ per cent., as they were found to be protective in their operation.
  MR. TOMLINSONwished to ask whether it was not a fact that the expression of the House of Commons would not, in practice, preclude the Indian Government from making the change if they found that the state of the Indian Exchequer allowed of it?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The Indian Government unquestionably have power to deal with it.

  METRIC SYSTEM.
  MR. A. F. GODSON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Weights and Measures Committee, presented at the close of the last Parliament; and, if so, whether he can state what conclusion have been arrived at by Her Majesty's Government as to the course to be pursued to bring about a speedy adoption of the metric system?
  MR. RITCHIE: The attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the Report in question, but further consideration is necessary before they can announce any conclusions in regard to the recommendations of the Committee.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. P. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether in the future appointments to the Irish Land Commission, he will consider the desirability of appointing men with a practical knowledge of agriculture?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Certainly; the practice in the future in this respect will remain unaltered.

  ROADS IN THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that, in the Park district of the Island of Lewis, and in many parts of the western mainland of Ross-shire, there are no roads, whilst the people are compelled to pay road rates; and whether steps will be taken to provide these districts with proper means of communication?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: As the hon. Member is aware, there is a sum of £3,900 taken for Minor Roads in the West Highlands and Islands Vote—out of this amount £1,800 has been allocated to the Lews and is apportioned to the various districts by the County Council of Ross-shire.
  MR. WEIRasked if the Lord Advocate was aware that the same state of things existed in the western part of the Island of Lewis, and whether these districts would be provided with proper means of communication?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid that was a matter for the County Council.
  MR. WEIRasked if the Lord Advocate was aware that the County Council had no power to provide funds for such purposes?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid he was referring to the last part of the question.

  VENTILATION OF THE UNDERGROUND RAILWAY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will bring in a Bill next Session to deal with the ventilation of the tunnels of the Metropolitan Railways?
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir. I cannot make any promise in the matter.

  SHOOTING AT A CYCLIST.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a gamekeeper of Lord Annally, for shooting at a cyclist on the Lucan Road to Dublin, was only fined 13s. 6d. at petty sessions; and why did not the Crown have the culprit returned for trial to the assizes on a criminal charge?
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): The answer to this question is as follows: On the evening of the 5th instant, a gamekeeper of Lord Annally, named Barrett, met on the public road near Lucan, and had some altercation with, a cyclist, named Evans. After Evans had parted from Barrett and proceeded upon his journey about 80 yards, the latter, unseen by Evans, discharged a gun he was armed with, but did not hit Evans. Barrett was subsequently arrested by the police, brought before the magistrates sitting at Petty Sessions at Lucan, and charged with the offence of shooting at Evans with intent. Barrett admitted that he had discharged his gun on the road, but denied positively that he had fired at Evans, whereupon
  912
  the magistrates, as they apparently considered the more serious offence not sufficiently proved, at the request of Evans altered the charge into the minor one of having unlawfully discharged firearms on a public road, and dealt with the case summarily, as they had power to do. Under these circumstances the Crown do not consider it desirable to take further action in the matter.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether, if the gamekeeper had been an evicted tenant, and had been charged with firing at a landlord, his punishment would have been a fine of 13s. 6d.?
  [No answer was given.]

  TELEPHONE SERVICE COMMITTEE.
  MR. J. TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is intended to re-appoint, at the opening of next Session, the Select Committee to inquire into the conditions of the Telephone Service, and of the terms of the licence between the National Telephone Committee and the Post Office Department?
  MR. HANBURY: I may remind the hon. Member that the reference to the Committee which sat in the last Parliament, was:—
  "To consider and report whether the provision now made for the Telephone Service is adequate, and whether it is expedient to supplement or improve this provision by the granting of licences to local authorities or otherwise."
  Without expressing an opinion on a matter which at the present moment would be premature, it is probable that the Government will carry out the recommendation of the late Committee by appointing a Committee in the next Session to consider and report upon the evidence already taken.
  MR. TULLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider applications from local authorities in the meantime?
  MR. HANBURY: I should like that question to be put upon the Paper.

  IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to

  913
  the method in which the mails are transferred at Holyhead and Kingstown from steamer to train and vice versa, being merely carried on the backs of porters, this being necessarily a slow and tedious process, requiring, when there is a heavy mail, nearly half-an-hour at each side of the Channel; and whether the Postmaster General will take the opportunity of a new mail contract to initiate some speedier and more satisfactory method?
  MR. HANBURY: The question of altering the present method of transferring the mails to and from the steamers and trains at Holyhead and Kingstown has been under consideration for many years past, but the Companies with whom the decision rests have not seen their way to substitute machinery for the present system. The time occupied in transferring mails, passengers and luggage does not ordinarily exceed 14 minutes at Holyhead and 10 minutes at Kingstown. The matter is, however, now under the consideration of this Department and of the Board of Trade.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked if the right hon. Gentleman could say what method was adopted in transferring the American mails?
  MR. HANBURY: I only answered the question on behalf of the Post Office, and I should be glad if the hon. Member would put the question upon the Paper.

  MACROOM POST OFFICE.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, why the Macroom Post Office has not been created a head office?
  MR. HANBURY: No advantage to the public would result from making Macroom a head post office, whilst, on the other hand, there would be some increase of expense to the Department. Moreover, the change is, for other reasons, undesirable. The Sub-Postmaster of Macroom carries on a private business in addition to the Post Office; and in these circumstances it is not advisable to increase his responsibilities to the Department.
  DR. TANNERasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that Macroom was the centre of a very large district, and whether he would recommend the noble Duke the Postmaster General to reconsider the matter?
  MR. HANBURYsaid, he was not aware of the facts stated by the hon. Member, but he had no doubt they were accurate.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any, and, if so, what steps will be taken to secure a better and more rapid transit from Macroom to Cork; and why the local railway is not employed in carrying all the mails?
  MR. HANBURY: Since the 1st June last, the railway has been used for the conveyance both of the night and day mails between Cork and Macroom, and additional time for posting has thus been afforded at Macroom.
  DR. TANNERasked if an arrangement could not be made so that communications might be sent direct to Dublin.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, he was not aware whether that could be done, but he would get the information.

  MILL-STREET POLICE ESTABLISH- MENT, COUNTY CORK.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if steps will be taken to reduce the police establishment at Mill Street, County Cork, in view of the very peaceful condition of that part of the county?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is perfectly true that Mill Street district is, at present, in a generally peaceable condition. The number of police now stationed in the district is 16, which is much below the former strength. The area comprised in the district patrolled by these men is unusually large for a police district, and contains upwards of 50 townlands. The Constabulary authorities are of opinion that the strength of the force in the district cannot at present be reduced.

  RINGABELLA FERRY POINT.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether any steps will be taken to secure the construction of a bridge at Ringabella Ferry Point; and, if this scheme has not repeatedly obtained the sanction of the Local Government Board in Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that the erection of this bridge was twice approved of at Presentment Sessions, but that, owing to the promoters not having applied for sufficient money to carry out the scheme, no contract was entered into, and the scheme fell through. The Local Government Board have no jurisdiction in the matter, and the Executive Government have no power to take such steps as are suggested.
  DR. TANNERasked if the right hon. Gentleman would give his assistance in regard to this matter, which was of great importance, both to coastguards and police?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not know that I have power to do so. It is a matter for which the Grand Jury are entirely responsible.

  CRIMINAL STATISTICS FOR ENGLAND.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of Sate for the Home Department when the Criminal Statistics for England, for the year 1894, and the Report of the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police for the same year, will respectively be presented?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY,): It is hoped that the Criminal Statistics for 1894 will be published before the end of the year. The Report of the Commissioners of Police has just been received, and will be laid before Parliament without delay.

  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON (GRESHAM) COMMISSION.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, does the Government intend, and when, to propose legislation in pursuance of the Report of the University of London (Gresham) Commission?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In answer to my hon. Friend, I am sorry to say that legislation will be impossible on this subject in the course of the present Session, and I am unable to say what legislative action will be taken by the Government.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. A. D. PROVAND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government are favourable to the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the laws relating to the licensing and control of the liquor traffic in Scotland with a view to their amendment?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think I cannot do better than repeat the answer I have already given to an hon. Member on this side of the House, who asked a similar question with regard to England—namely, that it is impossible that the Committee which was suggested should be appointed during the present Session in time to do any efficient work. The question will be considered by the Government during the Recess.

  BUSINESS IN SUPPLY.
  SIR C. DILKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury if he would bear in mind the assent he gave to the suggestion that it would be desirable to discuss two of the supplementary Votes in Class V. (Foreign and Colonial Services)?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am afraid I cannot give any pledge with regard to Class V. at the present time. I will consult with my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, as to whether a general arrangement can be made, and, as I have said before, I will endeavour to suit the general convenience of the House, but more than that I cannot say at present.

  EDUCATION ESTIMATES.
  MR. J. H. YOXALL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will arrange that the Education Estimates (Civil Service, Class IV., Votes 1 and 2) shall be taken at an hour not later than 9 p.m.?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid the answer he had given to the hon. Baronet applied to all the Estimates.

  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY (GUARANTEE).
  MR. BUCHANANasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would

  917
  agree not to take the Committee on the West Highland Railway (Guarantee) that night?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYreminded the hon. Member that it was only the initial stage which was proposed, which need not lead to any discussion at all.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid the question to be determined was whether the Bill was contentious or not.

  RECOVERY OF TRADE DEBTS.
  MR. COGHILLasked the Attorney-General whether he would consider the possibility of introducing, next Session, a Bill to enable traders in England to recover trade debts owing to them in Scotland and Ireland more cheaply and expeditiously than they could at the present time?
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): I will certainly consider the question raised by my hon. and learned Friend, but I am afraid I cannot offer any hope of legislation in that direction. I would remind the hon. and learned Member that any attempt to recover debts incurred in England against persons across the border, or in Ireland, raises many very thorny questions.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would move to report progress before 12 o'clock, in order to give him an opportunity of obtaining answers to questions raised by him in the discussion on the Woods and Forests Vote, or, if not, whether the Report stage of the Estimates would be taken to-morrow (Wednesday) at 12 o'clock?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I will answer the question on Dehalf of my right hon. Friend. I do not think it will be possible to interrupt the proceedings so early as 12 o'clock tonight, but I recognise that the hon. Member has a right to be answered certain questions raised yesterday, which I thought my right hon. Friend had already answered. However, I hope I shall meet his wishes by saying that I will not take the Report stage on that Vote to-night, but will put it down for to-morrow.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: What time to-morrow?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Of course, at the end of the sitting; it is a morning sitting.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked if there had not been an understanding that the Arms Act would be taken on Wednesday at a time which would permit of its discussion? If the Arms Act were taken, its discussion would certainly occupy several hours, and, in that event, he wished to know how the general understanding that the House should not rise much later than at the usual hour on Wednesdays could be secured.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman does not foreshadow such opposition as the introduction of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. A discussion on the subject would be, perhaps, more than usually inopportune at that stage, I apprehend.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  Mr. J. W. LOWTHER in the Chair.
  (In the Committee.)

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1895–6.

  CLASS II.
  On the Vote of £7,000, to complete the sum for Secretary for Scotland's Office,
  MR. J. F. WHITEsaid, he should not trouble the Committee by going into the details of the Vote, but the question of education was not a Party one. The vast majority of the people in Scotland were anxious that there should only be one Committee to administer the grant; that there should be one Board for elementary education and one Board for higher education. A resolution had been unanimously passed that there should be greater unity

  919
  of action, and the Association had already drafted a Bill. He thought the Secretary for Scotland might do something as to the distribution of this grant. It was necessary that there should be legislation on the subject; they were informed that the falling-off which had taken place was due to the fact that considerable payments had to be made on the ground of pleuro-pneumonia. It was said that the figure was £10,000, but this was owing to the haphazard way in which things were done, and he hoped the Secretary for Scotland next Session would bring in a Bill which would make permanent provision for technical education. Now, the administration of secondary and technical education had been greatly injured by their having separate committees. In England, education was under the Vice President of the Council, but in Scotland it was not so. He had the honour to head a deputation to the late Secretary for Scotland, and he promised that he would consider the question of uniting the two departments, and also having a Board of Agriculture dealing with agricultural matters. He ventured now to ask whether anything had been done? Some little progress was made in the negotiations, but there was nothing further. What they wanted in Scotland was some relation between these bodies—some educational council for Scotland, whether presided over by the Secretary for Scotland or the Lord Advocate, or someone else. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would consider this matter favourably in the Recess?
  MR. T. R. BUCHANANsaid, that during the past year a Departmental Committee was appointed to deal with the question of juvenile offenders. It presented its Report three months ago, and he hoped they would get an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Scotch Office, that they would take up the Report of that Committee, and introduce as early as possible next Session legislation on
  920
  the lines of the recommendations of the Committee. A Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, he thought by the Lord Chancellor, which did include some of the recommendations in this Report. Many in Scotland had in recent years suffered by the method of legislation adopted. Instead of having separate Bills for Scotland, they had Bills dealing with the whole of Great Britain, Scotland being tacked on at the end. This made it more difficult to understand the law for Scotland. There was another subject on which he desired to put a question. Certain papers were handed to him as he came in that afternoon, on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen City, who was unable, in consequence of the state of his health, to be present. The Lord Advocate would probably not be able to give a full reply at present, but perhaps he would consider the question. Certain regulations with regard to the police, issued by the Secretary for Scotland (Lord Lothian) in 1890, had not it was said been carried out to the letter in certain counties in Scotland, particularly the rules with regard to the age at which appointments to the higher posts were made. He would put the Lord Advocate in possession of the papers, in order that he might examine whether there was any foundation for the suggestion, and be able to give a satisfactory answer on a future day. In conclusion, he thought it might be said, with regard to the new Secretary for Scotland—and those who knew Lord Balfour of Burleigh as he did would recognise in him one who was thoroughly acquainted with Scotch affairs, who had lived in Scotland a great deal and who had presided over many local bodies—the only possible objection to his appointment was that he was not and never had been a Member of the House of Commons. They knew that he was a strong politician, and though he was opposed to many of them they were perfectly satisfied that, as regards

  921
  all subjects into which Party considerations did not enter, he would give a dispassionate and an intelligent consideration to any matters submitted to him.
  MR. J. G. WEIRsaid, he greatly regretted that the Secretary for Scotland was not in the House of Commons. He ought to be there. There ought to be no buffer between him and the House, and he had seriously thought of moving to reduce the noble Lord's salary on the ground that he was not in a position to meet hon. Members face to face and deal personally with the questions which they raised. He asked the Lord Advocate to impress upon the Secretary for Scotland the desirability of visiting the Highlands. The Scotch Office was very ignorant of Highland affairs. The authorities appeared to him always to stop at Inverness, though that was really where they ought to begin. He hoped that both the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate would seek to make themselves fully acqainted with the Highlands. He wished to draw attention to the fact that it was extremely difficult to get any satisfactory information from the Scotch Office. He had occasion to inquire, on the 13th of March this year, regarding an eviction on Black Isle. The Secretary for Scotland replied that the man owed four years' rent, though he held the receipts in his hand and invited the Secretary for Scotland to inspect them. To make matters worse he was told this man's behaviour to his own family had been extremely bad, and that he deserved no special consideration. During the General Election he made special inquiries, and found that these statements were absolutely inaccurate, and it was extremely unfair that this poor man should be maligned in this manner. It appeared to be the practice of the Scotch Office to take their information from landlords, who were a bad set, Highland factors, another bad set, and sheriffs. He desired to complain of the practice, of allowing procurators-fiscal to act as landlords' agents or factors. The late Secretary for Scotland expressed his disapprobation of such a practice but it still prevailed, and he hoped steps would be taken to
  922
  stop it. Referring to the salaries paid in the office of the Secretary for Scotland, he said everyone appeared to be ground down with the exception of the Lord Advocate, and he had to do another man's work in addition to his own for his £5,000.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The salary of the Lord Advocate does not arise on this Vote.
  MR. WEIRsaid his complaint was of the excessive amount of work which the Lord Advocate had to do in consequence of the Secretary for Scotland being in another place. He did not want to see the Lord Advocate break down in health in consequence of his arduous duties. Referring to the post of Inspector of Constabulary, he said he could not understand why military men should be pitchforked into such offices over the heads of members of the police force. He asked for an explanation with regard to the £250 for travelling expenses included in the Vote for the Inspector of Constabulary. He would like to know whether the office of this gentleman was in Edinburgh, where it ought to be, or 300 or 400 miles away from Edinburgh, up in Ross-shire, where it ought not to be. A very great deal of this gentleman's time appeared to be spent in Ross-shire. He was paid a large salary in order that he might go up and down the country to keep matters straight, and not to spend his time in his charming home in Ross-shire. He hoped the Lord Advocate would be able to give him such information on the points he had raised as would obviate the necessity for his moving a reduction of the Vote.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. PEARSON,)said, he was much gratified to know how concerned the hon. Gentleman was for his personal health as affected by the duties he had to discharge. Many of the points the hon. Gentleman had raised, however, were matters which had already been determined and could not be considered on this Vote. With regard to the complaint of the inaccuracy of the information of the Scotch Office, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that every public office was open to receive information from anyone who was ready to supply

  923
  it, and information would be as welcome at Dover House as in any other public Department. He could not conceive it possible that the late Secretary for Scotland wilfully closed his eyes to the light the hon. Gentleman might have desired to shed upon Scotch affairs. At any rate, he did not think that the hon. Gentleman would have cause to be dissatisfied in future with the accuracy of the information of the Scotch Office. With reference to the topic last touched upon by the hon. Gentleman, there was no such office as Chief Constable in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman must have been thinking of the office of Inspector of Constabulary. That was an office which entailed utterly different qualifications to those possessed by a man who had passed through the force, however high the position to which he had attained, and there was no hardship, in his view, in conferring the office on a person who had not passed through the force. He did not contend that it ought always to be confined to military men, but it did seem to him that, under the present short service system, it was desirable to employ military officers in posts of that kind. With regard to the length of the residence of the present holder of the office in Ross-shire, he did not know whether it was due to the necessity of paying special attention to the police force in that part of Scotland, or to a desire to enjoy the beauties of the country. As to the amount paid for travelling expenses, he would point out that his expenses were not handed over to this officer in bulk, but were regulated by an account sent in by him. Then the hon. Member had referred to an eviction which took place in the spring. He did not think the hon. Gentleman had brought that matter under the cognizance of the Scotch Office. Certainly it had not been brought to his own notice. Had it been, he would have given the hon. Gentleman all the information upon it he could. The only other point the hon. Member referred to was the position of the procurators fiscal. It was true that in some cases——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. That question will more properly arise at a later stage.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Yes, Sir; that is so, under the next head. He
  924
  would now pass for a moment to what had been said by the hon. Member for Aberdeen with reference to the Report of the Departmental Committee on habitual offenders which had been submitted to Parliament. That was, no doubt, a question in which a great deal of interest was taken, not merely with regard to inebriates but to all classes of habitual offenders. He was not in a position to say anything as to any possible projects for legislation on the subject, but he could promise that the report of that Committee would receive very careful consideration. It was quite possible that the Scotch people might be willing to submit themselves to legislative restrictions in their personal freedom for which other parts of the kingdon were not yet ripe; and he would leave the question by saying that he entirely concurred in what had been said as to the desirability of treating Scotland separately in such matters; and, no doubt, great inconvenience had been caused by the fact that some Acts of Parliament had been made applicable to Scotland, as it were, by an afterthought. One other topic raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen was the infringement or failure to observe the police regulations issued from the office of the Secretary for Scotland. He had not heard that any complaints had recently reached the Office, but he invited the hon. Gentleman to fulfil the undertaking he had given to supply the Office with information on the subject, and he would promise him that it should receive careful and sympathetic attention. He for one did not see the use of regulations of that sort if they were not observed. He now came to the speech of the hon. Member for Forfar, who introduced the question of technical education. That question rested, to a large extent, on statutes. It was apparent, from the question the hon. Member put to him the other day, that his main purpose was to look after, as was natural, the interests of agriculture. It must be remembered, and he thought the hon. Member had lost sight of that, that the money in question was not devoted by statute to purposes of technical education. There was an option left to the local bodies as to how they should apply it, and one of the complaints of the hon. Member was that the local bodies did not do

  925
  what he wanted them to do. He for one should look with favour upon any practicable proposal for the simplification of the administration of educational grants. With regard to the desirability of having the amounts of the grant fixed, and so protected against fluctuation, he was in sympathy with what had been said, because the action of local bodies from year to year could not be the same when the grants fluctuated seriously. He promised that the subject should receive the careful consideration of the Secretary for Scotland. The question of central amalgamation which had been adverted to was also one respecting which he could express a very favourable opinion. It was in some respects to be regretted that the body which administered Scotch education was not also the body interested in the administration of the grants from the Department and the grants from the Board of Agriculture. The matter might or might not require legislation. It was being considered with a view to ascertaining what would be the simplest mode of effecting the transference that would become necessary should the conclusion be arrived at that it was advisable and proper that a change should be made.
  MR. J. CALDWELLsaid, that no doubt there was no one in the other House more conversant with Scotch affairs than Lord Balfour of Burleigh. He protested, however, against the choice of a Peer as Minister for Scotland. The result was very inconvenient. Lord Advocates, in consequence, perhaps, of their legal training, and other circumstances, were seldom in such touch with the views of the public at large as to be capable of dealing with political matters from a broad point of view. It was, therefore, very desirable that they should have in that House a Secretary for Scotland who was in touch with the people. In consequence of the selection of a Member of the other House for this office there arose a very awkward circumstance.
  THE CHAIRMAN: In my opinion, this discussion is really out of order. All that Members are entitled to do upon the Votes for the Secretary for Scotland and his office is to criticise any official act of his. His position in the other House cannot be discussed
  926
  on this Vote. I do not say it cannot be discussed in this House, but this is not the proper time for discussing it.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid, that when Lord Lothian was Secretary for Scotland, a discussion of this kind was raised on the Vote before the Committee. One objection taken then was that Lord Lothian was not in the Cabinet. He should not pursue the subject further. He thought he had already sufficiently indicated what inconvenience was caused by the fact that the Secretary for Scotland sat in the other House. He wished to impress upon that official that he ought to take steps to keep sheriffs-substitute within bounds in their criticism of Acts of Parliament. Last Session an Act entitled "Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act" was passed with the approval of both Parties. A sheriff-substitute, who had been called upon to administer that law, had said that, in his opinion, the Act was unnecessary and would not accomplish any good purpose; that it would add materially to the expenses of the country; would cast upon the officials a large amount of extra work, and would cause much inconvenience to jurors. The Secretary for Scotland could exercise a certain amount of supervision over these sheriffs-substitute.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,)said, that the Secretary for Scotland could not exercise such supervision as the hon. Member supposed. That being the case, was the hon. Member in order?
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the statement of the hon. Member (Mr. Graham Murray) is correct, and I must presume it is, the position of sheriffs-substitute and their acts cannot be discussed on this Vote.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid, that there were other matters to which he wished to call attention. Why was not the amount set down for estimated travelling expenses smaller? Last year the amount spent was less by £250 than the sum originally asked for. Why had no attention been paid to that increase this year? The same amount was asked for, and, in his opinion, it seemed strange to ask for £250 more than experience had shown to be required. Some explanation ought to be given. Of course,

  927
  if there was good reason to believe that there would be greater expenditure this year than in preceding years, that would be a complete justification for the demand that was now made. The same criticism applied to the item for special inquiries. Much more was being asked for than was found to be necessary last year. Unless there was some special reason for anticipating an increase of expenditure under this head, the Treasury ought to be contented with the sum which experience showed to have been sufficient hitherto. If more money was granted under these heads than was really required, the surplus was appropriated to other items in the accounts, and this ought to be avoided, if possible.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEpointed out that the hon. Member was not accurate when he said that the Scotch Office could appropriate any excess to other items of the account. Any excess would go to the Treasury balances, and it could only be applied to other items by the consent of the Treasury. It did not appear that there had been any such application in the past year, and therefore the hon. Member's remarks lacked substance. It was necessary in these Votes to provide for fluctuating expenses; to provide enough to cover both the average expenditure and contingent increments. It was not desirable to present supplementary Estimates when, by a little forethought, it could be prevented. The figures to which the hon. Member had drawn attention were revised each year, and were fixed, as far as possible, in accordance with the average expenditure. But, as he had said, provision must be made for contingencies. It was impossible to foresee with certainty what inquiries might have to be made in the course of a year by the Scotch Department—inquiries, for example, into the progress of harbour works, in which subject some hon. Gentlemen opposite had shown so much interest.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELcalled attention to the threatened destruction of the Falls of Foyers, and asked the Lord Advocate what steps, if any, the Government had taken in order to preserve in their natural magnificence one of the finest waterfalls in the United Kingdom. He was aware that the reply of the late Secretary for
  928
  Scotland was that he had no power to interfere, the County Council of Inverness being the body which, after all, was responsible; but, in view of the close communication between the Scotch Office and the County Councils, he submitted that it would not be outside the administrative powers of the Scotch Office if they made some representation to the County Council on the subject. The present Government were showing their interest in the Highlands by a measure they were bringing forward at the present time, but it was no use offering Government guarantees if they were not going to prevent the destruction of the beautiful scenery of the country. Could not the right hon. Gentleman, in consultation with the Secretary for Scotland, do something to satisfy the strong public opinion which had been expressed in regard to this matter? He was informed that a considerable change of opinion had taken place in the last few months, many men who formerly supported the operations of the Company being now desirous of putting an end to them. He was informed that an influential Member of the present Government was a director of the Company. If that was not the case, it would be well if an official denial were given to the statement.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the hon. Member proposed to cast a considerable additional burden upon the Secretary for Scotland and himself. Parliament had not seen fit to place the natural scenery of Scotland under the protection of the Scotch Office, and, apart from that, the Falls of Foyers were a case of private property, tempered only by the fact that certain rights were vested in the representative local body. That was the situation; and there was absolutely no power on the part of the Scotch Office to interfere short of legislation. There was, however, another aspect of the question than that to which the hon. Member had adverted, and that was the industrial aspect. He knew the Falls of Foyers very well, and he had further made himself acquainted with the papers in the Scotch Office relating to the proposed utilisation of the waterfalls. He would further look into the matter in conjunction with the Secretary for Scotland, but it must be understood that he should have regard,

  929
  not only to the general interest of preserving intact such a notable feature of the scenery of Scotland, but also the industrial aspect of it, and its bearing upon the employment of the people in the neighbourhood.
  MR. DALZIEL,with regard to the labour aspect of the question, said, that he was informed there would not be more than 100 people employed, of whom not one-sixth would belong to the locality. If legislation was necessary he believed that, even at this period of the Session, a Bill would be passed without the slightest opposition.
  DR. CLARKregretted very much they had not the Secretary for Scotland here. Some of them fought this question 10 years ago, but were defeated, and since then both the late and the present Government had appointed Peers to the office.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I have already called the right hon. Gentleman to order in referring to that point; it is distinctly out of order on this Vote.
  DR. CLARK: The Vote is the salary of the Secretary for Scotland.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is one thing; his position in another place is another thing. The former can be discussed, the second cannot.
  DR. CLARK: I am not discussing his position in another place. I am discussing his position in this place. However, I have merely incidentally alluded to the point, and do not wish to pursue it. There was one item he wished information about, and that was the private secretary to the Secretary for Scotland. The late Secretary went to the War Office and took one of the senior clerks there, and employed him as his private secretary. This gentleman would have £600 or £700 a year from the War Office, and to take him away from his proper work and to give him an additional £300 a year as private secretary to the Scottish Secretary, he protested, was a very wrong and objectionable thing to do. Who was the present secretary?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: He is quite a different gentleman. The present Secretary has taken over the private secretary to the Permanent Under Secretary for Scotland.
  DR. CLARK: Has he any other appointment or salary?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: That I am afraid I cannot answer.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: Then I hope the right hon. Gentleman will inquire. I object to these gentlemen holding dual offices.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I have no doubt he devotes his whole time to the work of the Scotch Office.
  MR. R. WALLACEwished to say a word with respect to the keen feeling which existed in Scotland as to the projected destruction of one of the most beautiful scenic ornaments of the country, he meant the Falls of Foyers.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not in the House a short time ago when that question was discussed, and the Lord Advocate replied.
  MR. WALLACE: No.
  THE CHAIRMAN: After the right hon. Gentleman's explanation I must rule all further discussion on that subject out of order.
  MR. WALLACEsaid, he should like to press on the Lord Advocate to do all he could, officially or otherwise.
  THE CHAIRMAN: In consequence of the absence of the hon. Gentleman, he probably did not hear the answer of the Lord Advocate.
  MR. WALLACEsaid, that of course if the Lord Advocate had stated that he would do all in his power it would be impertinent for him to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the existence of a national feeling of which he must be aware as well as he, and he was perfectly sure, with regard to the circumstances with which it originated, the right hon. Gentleman appreciated the disaster which would ensue to the highest and noblest national interests of their governed country if this calamity were allowed to overtake it, merely for the sake of a commercial profit which could be secured otherwise as fully as in the way now projected.
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Vole of £14,341, to complete the sum for salaries and expenses of the Fishery Board in Scotland, and grants in aid of piers and quays,
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid, he did not object to this Vote in the

  931
  slightest degree, but on the contrary, he acknowledged with thankfulness that the Scotch Fishery Board were doing admirable work for the fisheries of the country generally. He felt it was quite justifiable for an English Member to intervene for a moment, because it was impossible to localise the question of fishing. Scotch fishermen came and fished in English waters, and English fishermen fished in Scotch waters. He acknowledged at once that the scientific work—for which a grant of only £1,800 was provided—had been most excellently done by the Scotch Fishery Board. In fact that which was most useful for their guidance, and which told them the best means of preserving their fisheries from depletion, was really due to the admirable works and reports published by the Scotch Fishery Board, and by the Lancashire Sea Fisheries District Committee, and perhaps one other similar body. Both from the point of view of occupying a large number of people, and of providing most wholesome diet and food, as well as for recruiting the Navy, he thought their fisheries were entitled to be encouraged in every possible way. That was especially so, when they remembered that the statistics—which he believed were dealt with more carefully in Scotland than in England—showed conclusively to his mind that while the catching power had been vastly increased, the catch remained very nearly stationary. That all pointed to what was a matter of great national concern, namely, that unless they in England, did take some steps, as had been done for Scotland, and as other nations had done, they would run a grave risk of over-fishing their seas to an extent which would prevent their being as productive as they might be. The work of the National Sea Fisheries' Association, and the Reports of the Scotch Fishery Board, had shown that wherever they had shoal waters those were the breeding places and nurseries for fish, and one of the difficulties they had to deal with in protecting these nurseries, was that they could only be protected within the territorial limit of three miles. There were many such isolated places in the open ocean, and many such nurseries and hatcheries of fish which extended far beyond the three-mile limit. One of the things
  932
  they had to do to preserve their fisheries was to protect them from depletion by these breeding grounds and nurseries being fished for immature fish by trawlers and others, who undoubtedly made great inroads on the fish in this way. The sea fishers of the United Kingdom had at any rate shown that they did not want to take everything to-day, and leave nothing for to-morrow, and they realised as strongly as anybody the necessity of some wider regulations and restrictions in preventing the catching of under-sized fish. He was afraid, the other day, when the question of the Foreign Office Estimate was before them, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was scarcely alive to the vast importance of making conventions with foreign nations in order to achieve this object, namely, to enable us to protect the extra-territorial portion of the ocean, and prevent foreigners coming within the proposed extended territorial limits to catch fish while our own fishermen might be excluded. It was by conventions with foreign nations that they could best and most effectually protect the harvest of the sea. Other nations had shown themselves more advanced on this subject, by legislation prohibiting the capture of under-sized fish in territorial waters, e.g., Holland, Denmark, Germany, and France. What they ought to do was to protect their seas against being over-fished, and, as Canada and some of their Colonies had done with the best advantage, take some artificial means of replenishing the seas at the same time, so as to continue the product of the sea. With regard to the administration of the Scotch Fishery Department, he thought there was one disparity which might be remarked upon. He would add here that there were too many disparities between the higher and lower offices in their service. The higher offices were generally well paid—much too highly in some cases—and in the lower, as compared with the higher offices, there was too great a difference between the remuneration. The Chairman of the Scotch Fishery Board had a salary of £800 a year. He knew that in the case of the former occupant of that Board it was alleged that he had not those special and expert qualifications which were almost essential in one

  933
  filling such a position. He did not know whether the present occupant—a former Member of that House—had more experience, but he would press that this was a question which should be dealt with from a higher scientific standpoint. He found, on the other hand, that the practical men, like the General Inspector of Fisheries, received only £300 a year, and the Secretary £400. That seemed to him a disparity which ought, if possible, to be remedied. The salary of the Inspector, who required special qualifications, might at any rate be increased, and for the mere nominal duties of presiding over meetings, and generally administering the affairs of the department, he thought the chairmanship might be well paid with a less sum. In the Scotch Fishery Bill of last Session, he believed there was a clause inserted to enable the subject to be dealt with by some reconstruction, and if that was intended, he hoped some attempt would be made to consider whether the scientific portion of the department might not be more amply paid and some reduction made, if not with reference to the present occupant, at some future time, in the salary attaching to the chairmanship of the Board. He again bore testimony to the value of the work done by the Scotch Fishery Board, and hoped the results achieved would lead to the establishment of a similar Board for England to do that general scientific and practical work, which at present was done by only one or two Fishery Committees, notably by Lancashire, and which ought to be done on a larger and more general scale. They were indebted to the Scotch Fishery Board for much scientific and practical knowledge which could not fail to be of great advantage to their Fishery Committees. The Government ought also to act without delay upon the Report of the Sea Fisheries Committee, by legislation, and conventions to prevent the destruction, of immature and under-sized flat fish.
  MR. BUCHANANremarked that the Fishery Bill of last Session to which the hon. Member had referred, while proposing to bring about a reconstitution of the Fishery Board left the chairmanship as it was before. The hon. Gentleman was in error in describing the duties of the chairman as merely nominal. The whole of the executive duties of the
  934
  Board fell upon him, and he had to devote the whole of his time to their discharge. The present chairman was a gentleman who was eminently qualified to deal with the many administrative duties he was called upon to perform. He joined his hon. Friend in what he took to be a general complaint with regard to fishery matters. He thought they had grounds for complaining that the late Government were not able to, and that the present Government had not taken any steps to, carry out any of the substantial recommendations of Lord Tweedmouth's Committee. One of the recommendations of that Committee was that a separate Fishery Board should be established for England. He need not say much as to the £3,000 grant for harbours. So far from that being an excessive grant, it was hardly an adequate grant for the purpose for which it was wanted, viz., the building of fishery harbours on the coast of Scotland. He would like to urge on the Government the necessity of taking early steps to endeavour to bring about among the maritime Powers round the North Sea some international agreement for the protection of fisheries in that sea. The 1882 Convention was satisfactory at the time it was brought about, but it was brought about only after a good deal of negotiation and after the lapse of a considerable number of years. Fisheries had since developed in various ways and none more so than those of the North Sea. He thought it was urgently necessary that the Government should endeavour to carry out the recommendations made by Lord Tweedmouth's Committee, that steps should be taken to summon the various Powers on the North Sea so that they might agree on certain international arrangements. They wanted better international protection against the catching of undersized fish. There was another point, namely, with regard to the regulations and further prohibition of trawling. That was a grievance not only in England and Scotland but in all the fishing communities in western Europe, and there was not a single nation in western Europe that had not made regulations and passed legislation with regard to this subject. Norway and Sweden had already extended their territorial limits for fishing purposes;

  935
  Spain and Portugal had, and France in some parts had done the same, and the Select Committee of 1893 recommended that this country should have the power also to extend the territorial limit. They had a special claim upon the Governments because it was the present Prime Minister who got an Amendment introduced into the Fishery Bill of last year in the House of Lords to the effect that the proposed extension of the territorial limit should not come into operation until an international agreement had been arrived at. When the Prime Minister introduced a limiting amendment of that sort they had fair ground for calling on him at the earliest date to enter into negotiations with the North Sea Powers to bring about that which he recognised as a desirable object. There was another point he wished to refer to, namely, that they might pass what good legislation they pleased, but it was not of much use if it was not properly administered and there was not an efficient body to administer it. ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to the better provision of sea police on the coast of Scotland, and particularly on the east coast, the Lord Advocate gave him rather an unsatisfactory answer to a question he put to him. Instead of the right hon. Gentleman telling him what he was going to do, he only told him what the late Government had not done. They never professed to be content with the neglect of duty of the late Government in this respect. The Jackal was told off for duty on the Moray Firth, and there were certain other vessels told off for duty on the north and west coasts, but there were not nearly enough vessels on those coasts, and there were none on the east coast. The Admiralty had during the past year or two certainly shown a greater willingness to accede to their demands and they had on certain occasions sent better vessels for the protection of the fishing interests. But they wanted a regular supply of good fast vessels that would make the system of sea police an active and permanent reality. ["Hear, hear!"] It was almost impossible for them to continually bring before this House the constant infringement of the regulations of the Fishery Board, and he did not think that that
  936
  was a duty which ought to be imposed on them. They looked to the Government to do something in this respect and to give them a more efficient marine police than they had had in the past. A further point he desired to bring before the Government was that though the Fishery Board had by no means too much money for the discharge of its duties, it had to spend a sum of £1,000 a year and might be obliged to spend upwards of £ 1,500 a year in the payment of guarantees for telegraphic and postal stations in the Highlands of Scotland. He thought that was irrational and unfair. It was irrational to make one Department of the State expend money for another Department, and it was unfair that while the Post Office took the profits of the large fishing stations, the maintenance of these smaller and less profitable stations should be imposed on the limited resources of the Fishery Board. He observed that during the General Election a Cabinet Minister stated that one of the administrative reforms of the Government was that they would do something to do away with the restrictions upon the extension of the postal and telegraphic facilities in the remote districts of the country. If the Government did that they would do very good work indeed. It was a perfectly indefensible anomaly that £1,000 a year should be paid for the purpose he referred to, and he looked forward to the present Government removing it at the earliest possible date.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURNdesired to express his general agreement with what had fallen from the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire, to whom they were much indebted for having brought in a Bill which enabled the Fishery Board to make better use of the Parliamentery Grant than they made before. The only point on which he wished to express a little disagreement with the hon. Gentleman was with regard to the class of vessels which he thought should be used for the purpose of sea police. His hon. Friend referred with approval to the ships of the Royal Navy but he (Sir W. Wedderburn) thought the duty would not be properly performed until they got a better class of boat, one really suited to police work. The fact was

  937
  that as soon as poaching trawlers saw a gunboat in the distance they disappeared. What was wanted was some fast vessel which would not be so very noticeable, or, as was said in Scotland ken-speckled. Trawlers would make the best possible police boats. The present vessels were not so swift as the poachers they were sent to catch. Therefore, he would impress on the present Government, as he had impressed on the last, the necessity of placing a special class of police boats around the Scottish coasts, and of putting on board them practical fishermen, who would be able to render valuable assistance to the police to catch the violators of the fishery bye-laws. He did not make any complaints against the Fishery Board. They could not make bricks without straw; and £3,000 a year was altogether insufficient to do their work. Again and again there had been terrible disasters amongst the fishing fleets. Again and again inquiries had been held to look into this matter, and recommendations had been made to increase the grant to the Fishery Board for providing harbours of refuge. One very important Commission had recommended £9,000 for the purpose of providing harbours, and that was at a time when fishing boats were not so large, and the need for harbours was not so great as at the present time.
  MR. J. G. WEIRagreed with the hon. Baronet, the Member for Banffshire, that £3,000 a year was terribly inadequate for piers and harbours in the north-east of Scotland. With regard to the question of trawling, he thought the sooner the territorial limit of three miles was extended the better. It was the custom around the Island of Lewis for the trawlers to come within the three miles limit, and to fish close to the shore, with the result that the nets of the fishermen were destroyed. The great thing in the interest of the fishing industry was to keep the trawlers well away from the fishing nets. He had been told by fishermen off the coast of Ross-shire that the fish last year were much larger in size than in former years, which was ascribed to the fact that the gunboat off that shore had displayed greater energy than usual in watching the trawlers, thanks to the frequent complaints that had been dinned into
  938
  the ears of the Secretary for Scotland and the Admiralty. It was painful to be continually appealing to the Scotch Office for additional sea police. It was only after persistent application that two gunboats had been sent to the north-east coast to protect the fishermen from the cruel harm done to them by the trawlers. But those gunboats were neither sufficient in number nor energetic in action to protect the fishing industry from the injury done to it by the trawlers. If the Fishery Board had not the power to deal with the gunboats, that power ought to be given to them. At one time it was said the gunboats were under the control of the Admiralty, and at another that the Admiralty had issued instructions to the gunboats to attend to the orders of the Fishery Board. But more gunboats ought to be available, and they ought to discharge the duty of watching those sea thieves, the trawlers. There were plenty of gunboats lying idle and rotting at Portsmouth and Chatham, whereas if they were sent north they would do good work, got fine air, beautiful scenery, and the men would lead sober lives. He found the sum of £1,685 for the travelling expenses and subsistence of the Board Inspectors and officers. He wanted to know how many members of the Board travelled, and particularly whether the Inspector of Salmon Fisheries travelled. In future he hoped that more detailed accounts would be given. Where were the fishery correspondents, mentioned in the Estimate, stationed? It was most difficult for the poor fishermen in the remote districts to lodge complaints with the Fishery Inspector. There were no light railways, tramways, or omnibuses. The men had to walk—often 30 miles and 30 miles back—and then they might find the Fishery Inspector was away. It was absurd that there should be no one to whom they could make their complaints; and some effort ought to be made to make their lot a little lighter in this respect. The fishermen had been told to act as their own police; but if they were to board a trawler, he supposed the next thing that would happen to them would be their arrest. Then, as to post and telegraph office extension, it was absurd for the State to ask for guarantees from poor fishermen before making these extensions. The men do not possibly give

  939
  guarantees, and there ought to be some arrangement made to meet these special cases. It was not worthy of a Government Department of the State to ask for guarantees from such poor people.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in order in calling attention to this subject now.
  MR. WEIR,continuing, asked where the block was in relation to grants in aid of piers and quays? Was it at the Scotch Office? Then, a second-hand yacht had been bought as a cruiser for £5,000. The vessel was quite unfit for sea in winter. She cost £350 in repairs the first year, and £400 in repairs the second year, £450 was spent in coals, though her coal carrying capacity was only 23 tons, and in fine weather she would, no doubt, be run under sail. Then, as to the Jackal, had the officers no regular holidays that they should be always going away to play golf? Let them take their holidays at a time when their presence was not required by the fishermen.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is repeating the argument he used about half-an-hour ago. I must ask him to be more relevant to the Vote, or, I warn him, I shall have to put the Standing Order in force against him.
  MR. WEIRsaid, that the Commander of the Jackal was paid £100 by the Fishery Board, in addition to his salary as an officer of the Navy. Why should the Fishery Board he saddled with that charge? Similar gratuities were paid to commanders of gunboats, who were supposed to be doing the work which they were ordered by the Admiralty to do. Why then, these incessant gratuities?
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the Committee must feel themselves strongly privileged to have listened to so stirring an oration, full of wisdom and sense, its only defect being that it was too brief. The speech of the hon. Member, as well as that of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire, were one long moan over the absence of police in Scotland, and of gunboats to interfere with Scottish fishermen. He had always understood that the Scotch were, up to this moment, a proud, independent people, perfectly capable of taking care of their own fish, and on occasion of other people's cattle. He was, therefore, shocked to hear them come to the House
  940
  of Commons and whine for more police, more gunboats, and more inspectors. What were the gunboats wanted for? In order to oppress the trawlers. ["Hear, hear!"] There were two kinds of sea fishermen. There were the real seafaring fishermen—the trawlers—who went to sea and remained away from home for long periods, and upon whom the country was dependent for its supply of fish at all seasons. Then there were the long-shore fishermen, the beach-combers; and they complained under the impression that the trawlers did them an injury. It was the quarrel between the long-shore fishermen and the trawlers that the House of Commons was being incessantly occupied with. The way to deal with the fishermen was to let them alone. It was the greatest rubbish to speak about the destruction of the fish, because reproduction went on much faster than the capture or the destruction. Then, as to immature fish, he maintained that they were some of the best. He did not want to have a whale put on his plate. [Laughter.] He much preferred a seven-inch sole. When those so-called immature fish were brought up in the trawl, in nine cases out often they were dead; and it would be therefore useless to throw them into the sea again. It would be much better to sell them, and to let someone eat them. He could not understand the attempt to tyrannise over the trawler. If anyone was to be dealt with it was the longshore fisherman. Hon. Gentlemen were so hard against the trawler because the longshore fisherman was always at home to vote for him while the trawler was generally at sea. The hon. Gentleman also wanted the Government to come to an international agreement to extend the territorial limit, or to do something very much like prohibiting trawling over the North Sea. Those agreements were extremely objectionable, because they could only result in placing English and Scottish fishermen under foreign jurisdiction. As to grants for piers and harbours, he recommended Scotchmen to rely more upon themselves; let them take an example from the Englishman, who never received grants and never asked for them. ["Oh! oh!"] It was true that some years ago a loan was made to Lowestoft; but the harbour became practically bankrupt, and the harbour was seized and sold. From that

  941
  day the prosperity of Lowestoft began to increase, for the men of Lowestoft took the matter in hand themselves. At this moment Lowestoft was one of the foremost fishing-places for trawlers on the East Coast; it was beating Yarmouth, which was the traditional place for fishermen. This result had been achieved without any grant from the State, and by the Lowestoft men themselves. The same thing was to be seen at Grimsby and Brixham. Scotsmen seemed to be under the impression that if they could get money it would be an advantage to them. He was their friend, and he thought it would be a great disadvantage to them. It would be much better that they should provide their own harbours and boats, and go fishing on their own account. The modern Scotsman seemed never to think himself safe unless he had a policeman on one side, an inspector on the other, and a couple of gunboats in the offing. He trusted that the House had heard nearly the last of this concerted attack on a useful and able body of seamen like the trawlers. They did no harm to the fish, and it was monstrous that the longshore fishermen should send Members to the House because they had votes, while the trawlers had not, to make a kind of crusade against the best body of seamen the country possessed.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, it was hardly necessary for him to hold the balance between the opposite views that had been expressed with reference to one of the most important interests in the country. He reminded the last speaker that, although he might be of opinion that the trawling industry was of enormous importance, strong views were held in Scotland on the matter, which turned not so much on the view that they ought to chase the trawlers from the sea, but on the view that the behests of Parliament ought to be obeyed, and that the limits fixed by legislation should be carried out. That was the whole of the trawling question at the present time. The question mentioned by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen, as to the possibility of a convention being necessary for that end, sprang mainly from the fact that the Fishery Act passed for Scotland a month or two ago contained a thirteen-mile limit. It was desired to have power to exclude trawlers beyond the
  942
  three miles from the coast; not to blow them up with torpedoes, but to make them keep to their own places so as to give the longshore fishermen a fair chance of a good catch. The 13 mile limit against trawlers would be inoperative without a convention against the foreign trawler. The question of marine police was a large one; but he thought it would be a difficult question to go into at great length on this Vote, because the question was not so much whether the money voted by the Committee was well spent, but whether the departments concerned could do more than they were doing to keep the trawlers within their proper limits. He was happy to say that some steps had been already taken in that direction. The last report of the Fishery Board contained a history of the proceedings of the new steam cruiser, the Vigilant, whose action to a large extent obviated the criticisms which had been made. The cruiser had been so strengthened as to be able to do what had not been done previously. It was obviously a difficult question how far the Navy was to render police services; but the Admiralty had of late gone as far as they could be expected to go in giving police aid to fishermen. The Vigilant had succeeded in catching two offending trawlers within the last twelve months, and that showed that she had sufficient strength to perform that duty. There were a large number of complaints which did not lead to prosecutions, such as that out-of-bounds trawlers did not carry their marks as they ought to do; but, undoubtedly the fact that the cruiser was going about on the look-out for them had a very salutary effect in diminishing grounds of complaint and prosecutions. The minor criticisms of the hon. Member for Ross he might pass over, because they were devoted to little items. The charge of £100 for one of Her Majesty's ships placed at the disposal of the Fishery Board was in accordance with established practice. The details that had been asked for could not well be introduced into Estimates; they were rather details of expenditure, and would be found in the accounts of the expenditure. He appealed to hon. Members to allow the Vote to be taken now.
  DR. CLARKmust remind the hon. Members for East Islington and King's

  943
  Lynn that, although Parliament passed a Bill last year, a clause in the Act would remain inoperative until there was an international conference, and until its operation outside the three-mile limit was agreed to by the foreign Powers. This was not, as had been assumed, a question, between longshoremen and trawlers; and the evidence given before the Select Committee showed that the demand for protection did not come from longshore men so much as from trawlers. They alleged that the great fishery beds of the North Sea were being destroyed by steam trawlers, which trawled forwards and backwards over those beds. It was the steam trawlers that wanted protection against themselves. If the hon. Member for King's Lynn would only inform himself of the facts, he could not make the speeches he did. Under the powers conferred by the Act, the Fishery Board for Scotland had determined that, within the three-mile limit, certain places should not be fished by steam trawlers; and what had been asked for was a sea police to prevent the law being broken. Very much policeing would not be required, because the penalty had been raised from £5 to £100, and you could not only seize a trawler and confiscate her nets, but you could send the men to prison. The exercise of these powers would soon prove a sufficient deterrent; but something should be done by the Government to bring about international agreement for the preservation of valuable nurseries of fish which would otherwise be destroyed.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said, there was an understanding that these Scotch Votes were to be disposed of in two hours, and, as that time had been exceeded, he hoped some progress might now be made.
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Vote of £6,123, to complete the sum for the Local Government Board, Scotland,
  DR. CLARKasked what was being done with regard to a Caithness parish under the provisions of the Parish Councils Act, for the formation of ecclesiastical into civil parishes.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,)said, the matter was under the consideration of the Secretary for Scotland, and it raised questions of policy into which it would not be advisable to enter at present.

  CLASS III.
  Vote of £57,736 (including a Supplementary sum of £7,000), to complete the sum for Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland—agreed to.
  Vote of £22,004, to complete the sum for Register House, Edinburgh—agreed to.
  Vote of £3,605, to complete the sum for Crofters' Commission—agreed to.
  Vote of £56,818, to complete the sum for Prisons, Scotland—agreed to.

  CLASS II.
  Vote of £2,221, to complete the sum for Household of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—agreed to.
  On the Vote of £24,850 for the salaries and expenses of the offices of the Chief Secretary for Ireland in London and Dublin and subordinate departments,
  MAJOR JAMESON, in a maiden speech, said he rose to protest against the principle on which the affairs of Ireland were being administered by the Chief Secretary. He felt he made this protest almost at the invitation of Her Majesty's Government, for the hon. Member for the Newton Division of Lancashire, who moved the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, stated in somewhat apologetic tones, that the reason Her Majesty's Government presented the Queen's Speech in the form of a blank sheet of paper (as far as Ireland was concerned) was in order to educate the new Members of the House of Commons. He accepted the free education so generously bestowed on new Members, but he protested against the Chief Secretary administering the affairs of Ireland on the lines of a blank sheet of paper. The hon. Gentleman either could not or would not see that the

  945
  agricultural necessities of Ireland called for his immediate attention. The Chief Secretary had said that he intended to conduct the administration of Ireland on the lines, not of the late Chief Secretary, but on those of the First Lord of the Treasury. But he had not done this, for the First Lord of the Treasury had told the House that it was necessary at once to deal with the land in Ireland, because the end of the judicial term of 15 years for which rents were fixed by the Irish Land Commission was rapidly approaching. If five months ago it was absolutely necessary, according to the First Lord of the Treasury, the Chief Secretary would not maintain that it was less necessary now when they were five months nearer to the end of the judicial term. The hon. Member for South Tyrone, too, had said that this was a matter of supreme and immediate moment to the wants of Ireland. Perhaps the Chief Secretary had satisfied the Member for South Tyrone and the Member for Waterford, on whom he lavished his praise on all possible occasions; if so it was not too much to ask him to endeavour to administer the affairs of Ireland with some regard to the wishes and desires of the Nationalist Members who represented three-fourths of the wishes and desires of the Irish people. But the Chief Secretary in no uncertain tones told them that he was about to administer the law in Ireland in a spirit of inflexible and unchanging opposition to their desires. But Nationalist Members from Ireland were not dismayed by this, or the large majority by which the Chief Secretary intended to rule and govern their country. [Cheers.] They had faith in their well-tried Liberal friends, and in the honesty and fixity of purpose of the Democratic Liberal Party of this country. But they relied chiefly on the courage and undaunted determination of the Irish race to bring the administration of the Chief Secretary into harmony with their views and wishes. [Cheers.]
  MR. JAMES DALYsaid, he hoped that in the interests of the landlords of Ireland alone the evicted tenants would have been reinstated. The Chief Secretary might resort to coercion, but the cause of Ireland would go on, and no matter what Government was in office the evicted tenants would have to be reinstated, for
  946
  if any class had been badly treated it was these evicted tenants. The Chief Secretary said his interference was unnecessary, for tenants were making arrangements with their landlords. But as far as South Monaghan was concerned the Secretary was wrong. Only one of thirty or forty farms, where there had been evictions, was in the hands of a "grabber." This man was a process server—the most undesirable tenant a landlord could have, because each gale day he had to be processed for his rent. The remedy turned out to be worse than the disease, and the new tenant was worse than the old one. This tenant knew there would be a process for him, and he earned the money the process-server would get by going into the office, taking the process, and serving himself. [Laughter.] He held in his hand a document which was uncontradictory, and which shewed that in a part of Ireland where the Plan of Campaign had been put into force the Land Commission had, in 114 cases, reduced the rents by 43½ per cent. The tenants themselves would have been satisfied with a reduction of 30 per cent., and had that reduction been granted there would have been no Plan of Campaign on the estate. That this reduction had not been granted had been a cause of regret to the landlord ever since. With regard to the judicial rents it could not be denied that the Irish tenants were entitled to have their judicial rents revised. Let the Committee remember the sort of weather that had prevailed in Ireland during the present year. There had been constant rain, with the result that the crop had been reduced to one-half of an average crop. As he understood that the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary, was about to go over to Ireland to inquire into the state of the country for himself he should wish to impress upon the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, if he desired to conciliate the Irish people, to be very careful as to the sources from which he obtained his information. If he did not take care it would be the old story of 'birds of a feather flock together," and he would obtain his information from Dublin Castle, which certainly would not assist him in understanding the case of Ireland. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that

  947
  several other Chief Secretaries had gone over to that country with the full intention of settling the Irish question and that they had signally failed to accomplish their object. If the right hon. Gentleman allowed himself to be nobbled by either Dublin Castle or by the landlord class he would be discredited in Ireland as so many hon. Members from that side of the House had been in the past. He might tell the right hon. Gentleman that the vast majority of the people of Ireland looked with a great deal of suspicion upon him and his Government because they believed that he intended to carry into effect the expression of the noble Lord, the Prime Minister, with regard to 20 years' firm rule of their country. If the right hon. Gentleman desired to make Ireland happy he must boldly strike out a new course for himself and must make an effort to raise her people from their present unfortunate position. If he adopted that course he would cause such peace in the country that none of the Queen's armies could bring about.
  CAPTAIN DONELANsaid, that he desired to take that opportunity of joining with his colleague, who had just sat down in his emphatic protest against the unfortunate position which the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary, had taken up in not only postponing the much-needed Irish Land Bill until next year, but in declining to take any steps in the direction of relieving Irish agricultural distress and thus to enable the Irish farmer to tide over the difficulties which now threatened to overwhelm him. He was aware from the replies which the right hon. Gentleman had given to the inquiries that had been addressed to him upon this subject by himself and his colleagues that he did not admit that any particular emergency existed in Ireland that called for immediate action. He, however, would most respectfully recommend the right hon. Gentleman not to place too implicit a reliance upon the reports and the figures which were furnished to him by the Irish Land Commissioners, because such a mistake had before now resulted in serious agrarian trouble in Ireland. He had no desire to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman had been intentionally misled and deceived by the Commissioners, because they were frequently misled and deceived themselves. In order to show the unreliable
  948
  character of the information with which the Commissioners had furnished the right hon. Gentleman, he might mention that whilst the Commissioners had stated that the average price of butter in the chief market towns in Munster during the quarter ending July last was 73s. 11½d. per cwt., to his knowledge excellent butter was selling in the country market towns near Cork during the whole of the summer at 4d. and 5d. a lb. and even for less. Then, again, those gentlemen had said that the price of oats was likely to improve, they being apparently altogether unaware of the very important fact which he and his hon. Friends had brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman yesterday and to-day, namely, that owing to the large quantities of old oats at present held by Irish corn merchants which were unsaleable except at a loss, there was likely to be no market for new oats except at a largely diminished price. These instances sufficiently proved what little reliance could be placed upon those official and red-tape reports, especially in regard to matters which practical farmers alone were thoroughly competent to understand. Living, as he did, in a purely agricultural district in Ireland and engaged, as he was, in farming pursuits, he thought that he might venture to speak with some little knowledge as to the condition of the farmers in one province of the country at all events, and he could say in all sincerity and without exaggeration or fear of contradiction that their position at the present moment was deplorable, or he might rather say desperate, because, as he had already pointed out, not only had the prices of such staples of Irish farm produce as butter and oats fallen to a point that had seldom been touched during the present century, but as his colleague had shown, the weather during the present year in Ireland had been of so disastrous a character that the farmers of that country would have but little marketable produce to dispose of. The very long drought in the spring and early summer burnt up the grass and thus reduced the yield of milk, while the heavy rains of the past month had seriously damaged the corn. Green crops had also been dried up, and large patches of brown were to be seen in which no seed had vegetated, although, in many cases, it had been re-sown two

  949
  or three times over. The only good crop in Ireland this year was the potato crop, but although potatoes would happily keep the people of Ireland from starving, potatoes would not pay rent. ["Hear, hear!"] In the condition of general disaster which he had endeavoured very imperfectly to describe, he thought it was obvious that it would be impossible for the farmers in the south of Ireland to pay their rents in full this year; and although he could not speak with the same personal knowledge of the rest of the country, from what he had seen, and heard and read, he was convinced that the farmers in the east, west and north were in just as sorry a plight as their brethren in the south. He would, therefore, earnestly press upon the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this vitally important question with a view to giving some relief to those unfortunate Irish farmers, who, through no fault of their own, were in dire distress, and in sore and urgent need of assistance. He was sure that there were some Irish landlords in that House who would not oppose the passage of such a measure, for, if they had any acquaintance with the condition of Ireland at the present moment they must know that what he had stated was the simple truth. The Government would themselves reap the reward of such an act of justice in a contented tenantry and a tranquil Ireland. [Cheers.]
  MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.) rose for the purpose of making a suggestion to the Chief Secretary. It was, he said, beyond question that some relief was desirable and was expected by the tenant farmers of Ireland, who had been grievously disappointed at the non-passage of Mr. Morley's Bill, to which they had looked forward with considerable expectations, but the only answer which they now received was that they must wait for another year and see what the Government would send them. Another obstacle that had been put forward was that the Land Commission had given orders to postpone decisions till after the March gale, to see what the Government were going to do. The weather during this mouth of August had been most extraordinarily disappointing. The second crop of meadows was unreapable, while the first crop had been short owing to the droughts in the spring. The suggestion which he wished to make
  950
  was not too great for the limits of the present Session. The Chief Secretary was going to bring in a Bill to renew one clause in the Land Purchase Act of 1881. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to include in that Bill a clause renewing the section in the Act of 1887 which gave the Land Commission power, by a sliding-scale, to vary the judicial rents. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman had adopted the suggestion with regard to the evicted tenants, but there were happily a large number of tenants who were not evicted, and who were entitled to relief, which would have been granted to them by the late Government, and which the present Government had stated must be withheld for the present. The Section in the Act of 1887 was ready to hand. It was passed in a form not the most acceptable to Irish Members, inasmuch as it went solely on the price and took no account of the yield. It was passed by the Conservative Government of that day, and, moreover, at a time when Mr. Justice O'Hagan was at the head of the Land Commission, whereas the present members of that Commission were Conservative appointees. He had never questioned the integrity of Mr. Justice Bewley, and had, in fact, defended him and his colleagues when they were attacked in that House. Accordingly the landlords had now the advantage of a Tory Land Commission to make this revision, and it was a revision which must proceed solely upon prices, taking no account of yield. As a temporary means of relief, achievable in the present Session, he suggested to the Government the re-enactment of that section of their own Act of 1887. He did not expect the Chief Secretary to promise this off-hand, as the right hon. Gentleman was, unfortunately, not a Member of the Cabinet. It was a certain, though he did not say a substantial, measure of relief; it was a manageable poultice to a very large sore. He had another suggestion to make. The Chief Secretary had induced Mr. Justice Bewley to say that he would postpone judicial decisions for a certain time and under certain circumstances, thereby demonstrating that the Government were not without some means of connection and communication with the Commission. In the case of the tenants who were not under the Land Commission, but under the

  951
  Land Judge's Court, which embraced no less than one-third of the land in Ireland, he had induced the Government in 1887 to insert a clause in the Bill of that year giving to the Land Judge an unrestricted right, upon the petitions of the tenants, to grant abatements of rent. The Land Judge should be prepared to give concessions to the tenants in his Court, whether they were judicial tenants or whether they were not. At the present time the answer was that the tenants who had had their rents fixed ten years ago can get no relief from the Land Judge. He asked the Chief Secretary whether he would communicate with the Land Judge so that the rentals of the tenants who had had judicial rents fixed should not be considered like the laws of the Medes and Persians, but that they should be considered as subject to variations. This would, he suggested, go a long way to meet the case. He had heard the excuse repeatedly from the Chief Secretary and other Members of the Government whenever demands were made upon them, that they had only just come into office, and that, being only just in office, hon. Members must wait until time had been given to consider the subjects put forward. That, no doubt, from a personal point of view was a reasonable excuse, but from a national point of view, and having regard to the relations between England and Ireland, and the growing necessities of their country, it was no excuse at all. ["Hear, hear!"] He believed the right hon. Gentleman had been inducted into the most unpleasant and disagreeable of all the offices in the Government, and no one who considered the fate and fortunes of that post for many years past would think that the right hon. Gentleman was sitting on a bed of roses, or that at the end of his tenure of Office he would be crowned with them. [Laughter.] But if they went back to the days of Daniel O'Connell they would find that the very same excuses were put forward by the Chief Secretary then. The fact was this—that Ireland had become simply a kind of springboard for British statesmen, from which they must vault into higher positions. [Laughter.] The condition of Ireland was tangible, and they could put their finger upon it with absolute certainty. In the first place, the mass of the people, so far as their
  952
  representatives went, was a constant and unvarying quantity. The English could not win over the Irish towards them, and they never would do so [Irish Cheers]; but they were like the man who tried to train his donkey to go without food—they were always on the point of success when the animal died, or the Chief Secretary retired. [Laughter.] Another point in the problem was that a minority was returned from Ireland of practically an equally constant character. Then they had the British parties on each side playing up for the support of that minority, or that majority, as the case might be. But the British Parties had neither that constancy in, nor that direction over, their Irish policy which they boasted of having in regard to other branches of their administration, such as the Foreign branch. The noble Duke, the Secretary of State for War, said when he was Marquis of Hartington, that the Government of England was a continuity; and the same thing was said by Lord Cowper, when he was Lord Lieutenant. But in regard to Ireland the policy was never one of continuity, and could not be, because, according to the way in which the play of British forces was brought into action, a different policy was presented. The right hon. Gentleman was to be pitied rather than to be attacked at the present time. He would find when he went to Ireland that he was no more a free agent than the spoke in a driving wheel. [Irish cheers.] If he saw the necessity of some kind of policy in regard to Ireland, he might be brought plump up against 23 Orange votes; he would know that he could not have the Nationalist votes, because the Nationalists told him frankly that they would have nothing to do with any British Government in Ireland, and, accordingly he would say:—
  "I had better stick to my 23 Orange votes, which I can rely on as a constant factor if I act in a particular way distasteful to the body of the people."
  He would suppose, for instance, that the right hon. Gentleman had a scheme he was sure he had not—of Local Government for Ireland. That scheme, which had done yeoman service upon so many platforms of the Conservative Party during the General Election, was, they knew, an electoral dissolving view.

  953
  The right hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet had brought in a scheme of Local Government for Ireland in 1878; they were promised one in the Queen's Speech in 1880, which never came; another was promised in 1881, and they were as near to it now as they were then. But he would suppose that the right hon. Gentleman had such a scheme, and desire to make it in some way acceptable to the general body of the Irish people and their representatives in that House, and he assumed that, as a human being, he would have that desire. The moment he did so the party of the garrison, in whose hands was the administration of this million or million and a half, who had all the grand jurors, secretaries to the grand jury at £500 a year, treasurers at £800 a year, sheriffs, coroners, petty sessions clerks, and all the other minor pickings which were the appanage and the cause of the loyalty of the minority in Ireland, [Laughter] would at once commence to howl:—
  "Are you going to hand Ireland over to the rebels and give the Irish Party the power of spending our rates? We are the only loyal, educated, and wealthy party, who stood by you at the Boyne, Aughrim, and Derry."
  and so on, in the usual fashion. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman was in an impossible position; the Nationalists he could not satisfy except in one way, and the Tory Party in Ireland would not allow him to do anything. For the first time since the Union the British Conservative Party had a majority independent of the Orange Party. But the right hon. Gentleman would deny his proposition; he would not see the Orangemen because they would come to him without their sashes on and in excellent broadcloth, and he would see in them nothing but loyal citizens who had given undeviating support to the Conservative Party. But nobody would pretend that Ireland would be governed except in accordance with the wishes of the Orangemen. Of course they knew from The Times newspaper and other sources of British enlightenment that the speeches of Nationalist Members in that House were merely a common form. But, despite that, he maintained that the right hon. Gentleman's position was an impossible
  954
  one, and he would take as an illustration the question of the Christian Brothers. The Government had appointed as Solicitor-General for Ireland a Catholic: he would much rather that the hon. Member for Mid Armagh should have been appointed ["Hear, hear!"] or some other true representative of the Conservative Party. But directly the appointment was made, the Member for South Belfast wrote a letter to the Standard in which he said that the appointment of a Catholic meant that the Scarlet Lady was going to be satisfied by the settlement of the Christian Brothers' question. He ventured to say, that the new Solicitor-General for Ireland cared nothing about the settlement of that question, what he wanted was to get office in order to see his way to a Judgeship. [Irish Cheers.] But why did not the Government settle the Christian Brothers question? They had not put forward an unreasonable claim. The Catholic and Protestant Archbishops of Dublin had joined hand in hand in making the demand on the late Government, and the demand was dishonoured, and it was dishonoured because of the opposition of the Member for South Tyrone, [Irish cheers.] The Member for South Tyrone threatened his resignation, and now the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman was the answer given by his predecessor, that he was going over to Ireland on Tuesday week, or it might be Wednesday week, [laughter], and then, after he had had a little holiday, he would meet these eminent persons who advised the Government, and when he came back he would deal with the matter some time next Session. Meantime, nothing was thought of the deprivation of this body and the pupils of the rights given in England years ago. They began to settle the Catholic University question 25 years ago, and there was not a brick laid yet. How many young men had passed into the world deprived of University education? It would be the same with the Christian Brothers. Now, the Government was going to deal with the land question. What was the first Act of the Government? There were four Unionist Members, who were on Mr. Morley's Committee, now in the Government, and certainly, with regard to the Member for South Tyrone, he readily acknowledged the services he had rendered on that Committee. Of the four, one

  955
  was in favour of reform and the other three were against it. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Brodrick) drew up a Report in favour of doing nothing, and he was ably assisted in that arduous task by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Macartney), and the new Solicitor-General for Ireland. He ventured to say to the Irish tenants this: Why was the hon. Member (Mr. W. Kenny) made Solicitor-General? In his election address the Attorney-General for Ireland had to say something pleasing to the farmers of North Derry; but the Solicitor-General had a purely urban constituency, and he was put into office as a watch-dog on the part of the landlords. [Irish cheers.] The Solicitor-General was to watch the Attorney-General, and the Member for Guildford and the Member for South Antrim were to watch the Member for South Tyrone. [Laughter.] Did the Government in this way think they would secure the confidence of the Irish people on an agrarian question? There was one section of the Irish people for whom he had not the smallest sympathy—he referred to the loyalist section of the North. These Gentlemen joined with the Nationalists in demanding a Land Bill. They declared they were against the landlords, but when it came to the poll they were Tories first and land reformers after. They would find out that this Government was a landlords' Government and then they could console themselves, in their meeting-houses and chapels, that at any rate, the Pope had not come over. [Laughter].
  "After all, the Union was the first consideration"—
  they would be told by the Member for South Antrim—
  "The Protestant religion was the first consideration, and were they going to sacrifice for a beggarly reduction of 25 per cent. the great principles of the British Constitution."
  These were the dry bones on which they would be fed. There would be a great amount of British Constitution and very small reduction. He had great sympathy with the position of the Chief Secretary. He was sure he had the best intentions, but he would find, as his predecessors had found, that the situation was too much for him. ["Hear, hear!"] But now that he was about to proceed
  956
  to that country, had he any views whatever about that country? [Laughter.] They had Tory programmes galore during the General Election; showers of British gold were to fall on Ireland—the gold, he might observe, having been first collected from Ireland. [Irish cheers.] As had been observed, they were always wiping the tear from the eyes of Erin, but Ireland had to pay for the pocket-handkerchief. [Laughter and cheers.] Was the right hon. Gentleman to have a free hand in Ireland from Lord Cadogan, who began his career by moving the rejection of the Municipal Franchise Bill? Had the Chief Secretary any views as to that? How many months in office would it take to convince him that an Irishman was entitled to the same vote as an Englishman, a Welshman, and a Scotchman? Would it not be well to lay down a scale as to the amount of time he would require for the solution of the various programmes? Three months for the land question, three and a-half months for the municipal franchise, six months for light railways, 18 months to five years for local Government, and as to the Christian Brothers he might say Tib's Eve. The Chief Secretary was an experienced Member of that House, and he belonged to a family of statesmen. He had heard the Irish question discussed on many occasions. The right hon. Gentleman had had two months for the consideration of these questions. But he was not in the Cabinet, and was not in a position to give the House any satisfaction before the opening of next Session. He would put this to English gentlemen. They had been in possession of their freedom since Magna Charta; they had had a Parliament more or less free since that time operating on their grievances. Public opinion played around every English Administration and sweetened every English office. But so far as Ireland was concerned, in thought and in temper, they were still at the Battle of the Boyne. In the administration of the country they were ruled by gentlemen who celebrated that conflict annually, and whose chief boast was that upon an occasion two or three centuries ago they came out on top. Could English gentlemen imagine that Irish Members, who had been slaving in the House for so many years, could

  957
  accept such excuses and answers with any satisfaction, or that the Irish people could have anything but a growing sense of distrust of Parliamentary institutions and a growing sense of disloyalty to the Government that Parliament sent among them? The situation was an impossible one. They were referred to the savings banks—probably the most contemptible argument ever put forward. The savings banks and the whole banking system were novel in Ireland. The people had no other means of investing their money, but in the savings banks or in the land; and in England an increase in the savings banks deposits, instead of being regarded as a proof of prosperity, had always been regarded as a proof of bad trade. The position after a century of British rule was that, while England had grown richer and increased her population twofold, the population of Ireland had fallen by 50 per cent. In England the taxes had become more easily payable by the individual, but in Ireland they had increased by 50 per cent. Yet, after a century of this state of things, the right hon. Gentleman came forward, and in his initiatory speech declared that he would trust to time for the settlement of the Irish question. No attempt was being made to bring about a solution of the larger questions of statesmanship in Ireland. So far as the mind and temper of the Tory Party were concerned, they were as far from a settlement as ever. He would offer no advice to the right hon. Gentleman, because his advice would not be accepted; and the advice which the right hon. Gentleman tendered to the Irish Members they declined to take—[Cheers]—namely, to attorn to the system of misrule in Ireland. While he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman's administration in Ireland were marked by less bloody episodes than those which stained that of his Conservative predecessor, the last thing that any of them could do was to prophesy about Ireland. They could only tell the right hon. Gentleman the conditions of the problem; but they made no prophecies as to the future, except this one prophecy—that, as it was in the beginning so it would be to the end, until Irish Nationalist hopes were recognised so as to enable them to
  958
  take their share as freemen in the Government of their own land. [Loud cheers.]
  On the return of the CHAIRMAN after the usual interval,
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)said: Before I proceed to deal with the speech just delivered by the hon. Member for Louth, I wish to say a few words with respect to the speeches of the hon. Members who preceded him in Debate. The hon. Member for West Clare attacked my administration, or, rather, I think he said my non-administration. Well, I have not had very much time for any administrative acts up to the present, and I do not know what administrative act the hon. Member desires to attack, or in respect of what point I ought, according to him, to have exercised my administrative power, but have not. It appeared, however, from the latter part of the hon. Member's speech that his real complaint against me was that I had stated that my intention was to administer the law in the spirit of an inflexible and unchangeable opposition to the destinies of the Irish people. I do not think that I can be fairly charged with having made any statement of the kind. I presume the hon. Member refers to what I said in my speech last week, namely, that the policy of the Irish Executive and of the Party generally was one of inflexible and unchangeable opposition to the policy of Home Rule. But it is not my desire, or the desire of the Irish Government, to administer the laws in a spirit of unchangeable and inflexible opposition to the desires of the Irish people. On the contrary, it is our wish to administer the laws in accordance with those desires as far as the general principles of statesmanship, which no Government can afford to neglect, will allow. The hon. Member for South Monaghan has complained that my answers to questions have not been in entire accordance with the spirit displayed in my opening speech. According to the hon. Member, whereas my speech was conciliatory and even "sugary," my answers to questions have consisted of refusals of what was asked

  959
  of me. Well, what is it that I was asked to do and have felt bound to refuse to do? The hon. Member desired, I believe, that I should bring in a Bill dealing with the question of the evicted tenants, which should be not merely a re-enactment of Clause 13 of the Act of 1891, but which should also contain a variety of other provisions, and the hon. Member added that with a stroke of my pen I could reinstate the evicted tenants. I think that to anybody who has followed the questions relating to the evicted tenants it will be quite clear that neither I nor any other Chief Secretary could possibly reinstate those tenants with a stroke of the pen. There is hardly any subject about which there has been more controversy, and I must remind the hon. Member that we have from the outset of this short Session refused to deal by means of legislation with any subject of a controversial character. What I have undertaken to do is to deal with the question of the evicted tenants so far as that can be done without stirring up controversial topics. And I would remind the Committee, that, although my predecessor introduced a highly contentious measure last year, and another measure this year which in its dealing with this particular question was to some extent controversial, but not as controversial as the Bill of last year, yet the late Government did not succeed in doing anything at all for the evicted tenants. If hon. Gentlemen will accept our offer to re-enact the 13th Clause of the Act of 1891, it is my hope that at least we may do something, though not very much, for the cause of those who are now out of their holdings. I will not go into the question of how they are out. Then, hon. Gentlemen have further called upon me to introduce a measure for the revision of judicial rents. I would point out that this is almost as controversial a topic as that of the evicted tenants. A Bill was passed in 1887 dealing with this question and providing for an automatic revision of rents in accordance with the fall in prices, but this is not a process which can be very often repeated. If whenever prices happen to fall Parliament is immediately to be called upon to pass a special measure for the revision of rents, it must be clear to everybody that the legislation of 1881, the object
  960
  of which was to settle the rents for a fixed term of years, would be practically destroyed. The hon. Member for East Cork has urged me not to place too much confidence in the information on the subject of prices which I am supplied with by the Land Commissioner. The, information of the hon. Gentleman may be more accurate than that of the Land Commissioner, but he will excuse me for saying that I at least can have no special reason for believing that to be the case. But whether the hon. Gentleman is right or wrong in holding that the price of oats is likely further to fall in the immediate future, and whether he is right or the Land Commissioner is right as to the price of butter, does not really seriously enter into the question with which I am now dealing. In my judgment, it would require something far more than a presumption in favour of a fall of prices in oats or butter to justify any Government in undertaking to bring in a special measure for the revision of rents fixed under the Act of 1881. It has once been done, in a time, a highly critical time—[Nationalist cheers]—when undoubtedly prices had fallen very rapidly and very far. The mere fact that that course was once adopted is in reality a reason against adopting it again unless the necessity is quite as urgent as that. Now, in the reports which reach me—and I make allowances for errors—no such urgent condition of affairs has arisen as would justify the Government in bringing in a measure such as that demanded by the hon. Gentleman. I pass to the speech, the very amusing and not ill-natured speech, of the hon. Member for Louth. He reminded me that I had disappointed the farmers of Ireland by inducing Mr. Justice Bewley to give orders to the Sub-Commissioners to postpone their decisions in the case of applications for refixing judicial rents. I may at once say I have not induced, or tried to induce, Mr. Justice Bewley to do anything of the kind. I merely asked Mr. Justice Bewley certain questions as to what would be the course of action adopted by the Land Commission. I have suggested nothing to him, and his answers, I believe, were embodiments of the view at which he had arrived before I asked him any questions at all, and quite independently of those questions. The hon. Member for Louth

  961
  began his speech by giving me a piece of advice. He advised me to do two things—first of all, to introduce into the measure re-enacting the 13th clause a section from the Act of 1887 giving the Land Commission power to apply a sliding scale so as to vary rents in accordance with variation in prices; and he has stated that this measure would be non-contentious. Such a measure could not fail to be contentious, arid contentious in the highest degree. He also spoke of the Land Judges Court, which, under the Act passed in 1887, has power to give abatements to tenants who did not hold under a judicial tenure, and he asked me whether it would not be well I should extend the powers of the Land Judges Court so as to enable them to give abatements whether judicial rents had been fixed or not. And not only that, but he further suggested that such abatements should be of a general character, depending upon the variations in prices—in other words, that the Land Judges Court should be empowered, in the case of estates under their control, practically to apply the provisions of the Act of 1887. My answer to that again is that, whatever may be the merits of the suggestion, it is perfectly clear nobody can regard such a measure as non-contentious, and therefore it is useless for me to consider at the present time whether it would be desirable or undesirable to bring such a measure forward. The hon. Member, having dealt with these two points, proceeded to wander at his own sweet will over almost the whole field of Irish policy. He referred to local government, the Christian Brothers, a Catholic University, the Land Bill, and, lastly, a Municipal Franchise Bill. I did not know that on the Vote for my salary I should be likely to be called upon to deal with all these questions. I should, however, like to say, with regard to the Municipal Franchise Bill, that the hon. Member was not correct in his statement with regard to Lord Cadogan and the rejection of that Bill. Lord Cadogan, in the House of Lords, strongly pressed the Second Reading of that measure, and it was largely at the instance of Lord Cadogan that the Second Reading in the House of Lords was passed. When the Bill reached the Committee stage, in consequence of circumstances very well known, those
  962
  Amendments which had not been introduced into the Bill, and which there had been no opportunity of introducing in the House of Commons, the Session being almost over at that time, could not be dealt with; it became perfectly clear that the Bill could not, in the time at the disposal of the House, be amended as it required, and in consequence of that, and for no other reason, the Bill was dropped. With regard to the other questions on which the hon. Gentleman seemed to invite my opinion, I am sorry to say that I cannot on the present occasion follow him. He urges that personal inexperience, which is the misfortune of each new Chief Secretary—[Nationalist cheers]—is no excuse for inability to at once formulate a policy; but I cannot help saying it is a somewhat strange thing that the moment a new Chief Secretary—and especially a Unionist Chief Secretary—comes into office, all those thorny questions which have been gradually accumulating in connection with Ireland suddenly seem to assume an urgency which they did not possess before—[Cheers]; and if I may take one out of the long list by way of illustration—I mean the Christian Brothers—I would remind the hon. Gentleman that my predecessor was considering this question for no less than three years, and at the end of the three years he was not able to furnish a solution that was satisfactory to the National Board of Education. If Mr. Morley was unable to find a solution of this question in three years, surely I may claim a little more than three weeks to come to a conclusion upon it. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Louth dwelt at great length on the difficulties which any Chief Secretary naturally and inevitably had to contend against. I can assure him I am deeply sensible of those difficulties, and in some respects I am ready to admit that I do not think he has exaggerated them. Every Chief Secretary has a very difficult task before him, and I certainly should not be fit to hold the place I do, if I did not realise those difficulties to the full. But, Sir, some of these arise from the fact that the Government of this country is carried on by means of Party, and I would remind the hon. Member that even if Home Rule was granted under a Bill such as that brought forward by Mr.

  963
  Gladstone during the administration of the late Government, Ireland also would be ruled by Party, and the disadvantages which attach to Party government would be, I believe, quite as strongly felt under a Government carried on in Dublin as under a Government carried on in Westminster. ["Hear, hear!"] I am aware that the Government of Ireland has shown an absence—a deplorable absence at times—of continuity, but at all events, as I think the hon. Member for Louth has himself said, we may now look forward to six years of Unionist Administration. That will, at any rate, I trust, give us a continuity of six years, and a continuity of six years is worth something. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member has told the Committee that the population and the produce of Ireland have been growing less, and taxes have been increasing. It is true that the population has been growing less, and I am not at all sure that those who remain are not happier in consequence; but it is not, I think, true that the produce of Ireland has been growing less, and I am certain it is not true that the wealth of Ireland has been growing less. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member referred with some contemptuous expressions to the amount which is now deposited in the savings banks of Ireland, but even he cannot deny the testimony to the increased prosperity of that country afforded by the returns of the railways, which show a steady increase. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member has told me if I trust to time to produce ameliorating effects in Ireland and to reconcile the people to the Government under which they live, I am trusting to a broken reed. That is a matter which only time can show. The hon. Member tells me I am not likely to repose on a bed of roses or to leave my office crowned with laurels. I do not expect one or the other. I know perfectly well that I shall not repose on a bed of roses; I know the disadvantages which attach the position I now hold, but I shall be well satisfied if, at the end of that time, I can feel that I have done my duty, and that Ireland, if by ever so little, is more prosperous and more contented than when I found it. [Cheers.]
  MR. J. DILLONobserved that the Chief Secretary, towards the conclusion of his speech, had alluded to
  964
  one of the difficulties of Irish Secretaries being their inexperience of Irish affairs. That very inexperience was one of the main causes of the opposition which had always animated Irish Nationalist Members towards the present system of Government. ["Hear, hear!"] Why should Ireland alone of all the portions of the United Kingdom be subjected to the government of a man who, by the admission of the right hon. Gentleman, approached that most difficult task with a total inexperience and want of knowledge of Irishmen? If the Irish Members needed any justification of their persistent opposition to the present system of government of Ireland they had it from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman himself. The Chief Secretary had said that one of the causes of the difficulties and troubles of the Irish Government was to be found in the fact that the Government of this country was carried on by Party. Government by Party had its advantages and disadvantages, and with all its disadvantages experience had shown it was the form of government which best safeguarded the liberties of the people. Government by Party, however, was one thing in Great Britain and quite a different thing in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the same troubles would exist under Home Rule. He disputed that proposition, because then the Irish Minister would be responsible to the people whom he ruled, whereas now the Chief Secretary, with his extensive powers, was utterly irresponsible to the people whom he governed and to whose convictions, desires, and aspirations he was opposed. The right hon. Gentleman complained that a great many Irish questions assumed suddenly, and apparently mysteriously, on the advent of a Unionist Chief Secretary, a burning and intense character. The explanation was very simple. They had been burning questions for years, but when there came into office three years ago a Government which, though undoubtedly weak, and unable to do much for Ireland, did try to solve those questions, was it rational for any man who understood the play of politics in that House to make it a reproach against the Irish Members that they did not press upon the late Government the solution of questions which, according to the

  965
  measure of their ability, the then Government, with their small majority, were endeavouring to solve? The Chief Secretary had mentioned the case of the Christian Brothers. He frankly admitted that he did not approve of the conduct of the late Government on that question, as he thought they ought to have settled the claims of the Christian Brothers long ago, but as practical politicians they had to recognise that the late Government was weak, with an uncertain majority, which did not permit them to act with that freedom which a Government with a majority of 152 could exercise, whilst he contended that the action taken by the Irish Members on the subject was the only prudent course they could pursue. The Party of the right hon. Gentleman won many thousands of votes at the late Election on the ground that they were favourable to denominational schools, and, having no obstacle in their paths, he trusted they would immediately apply themselves to settling the grievances of the Christian Brothers in Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman said, that one of the evils of Irish Government had been its lack of continuity. In some respects it had been too continuous for the taste of the Irish people, for, notwithstanding changes of Government, some of the worst features of the policy of the Irish Government remained the same, and although a great change was made by the late Government in this regard, there was much in its conduct the Irish Members had to find fault with. Some of the worst features of the Irish Government were continuous, no matter what Ministry came into power. The right hon. Gentleman held out to them most delightful prospects. He bade them cheer up, for they were now to have six years of continuous Unionist Government, and that, he said, was, at all events, worth something. They were familiar with all the talk about prosperity. Years ago—35 years ago—Lord Lieutenants, addressing banquets held in connection with the cattle show, used to congratulate Ireland on the enormous increase of her flocks and herds, the decrease of population, and the increase of wealth. Years rolled on and events took place which convinced many men that such optimistic utterances of the Lord Lieutenants were based on untruth
  966
  and fallacy. They were now promised a period of repose and peace; he had no doubt they would have six years continuous Unionist Government—the six years continuous administration of the brother of the right hon. Gentleman. That period was eulogised as one of prosperity and peace. He would take one list, that of population. In the whole history of modern civilisation there was no greater strain upon any civilised Government than the continuous depopulation of Ireland. Fifty years ago Ireland had a population of 8,500,000, and to-day she had a population of 4,500,000. In 10 years the population decreased by 470,000, and that period covered the six years of the Unionist Government. In 1886, when the last Unionist Government entered upon office, the population of Ireland was 4,905,000, but in 1892 it had decreased to 4,638,000, being a reduction of 267,000, or of 44,000 per annum. Was not that a frightful fact, and especially when they remembered that the larger part of the reduction was the direct result of the violent expulsion of people from their homes? [Cheers.] That was what six years of continuous Unionist Government in Ireland was worth. Ho presumed that, before the right hon. Gentleman left office, another 250,000 of people would have gone. ["Hear, hear!"] In 1892 a Home Rule Government came into office. It was perfectly true that that Government had not been able to do anything for Ireland. But whose fault was that? [Cheers.] Could anything be more unreal, more unjust, more uncandid than for the right hon. Gentleman to blame the late Government for not having achieved anything for Ireland, when he knew it was his friends on the other side of the Lobby who prevented them? [Cheers.] The late Government, however, did two things. In 1892–93 they reduced the drain of population from 44,000 to 19,000—["Hear, hear!"]—a fact which would be written in the pages of history to their honour. And though they sent Irish Members back with empty hands, they for the first time brought into the House a great and a beneficent and a generous measure of land reform for Ireland, without waiting to be forced to do it by agitation and crime in Ireland. There used to be a conviction in the minds of the Irish

  967
  People that they could not get even attention until they resorted to disorder and crime. There fell from the right hon. Gentleman words which ho was sorry to think conveyed that lesson again to the people of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said that once before—in the year 1887—the judicial rents were revised in a time of great crisis, and he intimated that there was no great crisis now. Must there be a great crisis before any justice would be given to the Irish people?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, what he referred to was an agricultural crisis.
  MR. DILLONsaid the right hon. Gentleman was sadly in error. In 1886, when Mr. Parnell introduced his Bill, they were met with precisely the same denials which were thrown across the House that night. They were told that the year was prosperous and that there was not a shadow of an excuse for any reduction of the judicial rents. Lord Salisbury declared, in the autumn of 1886, that it was not expedient to reduce the judicial rents, and if it were expedient it would not be honest or just. What brought about a revision of the rents in 1887? The effects of the winter of 1886. He desired now to say a word on the question of the evicted tenants. The late Government introduced a Bill which would have settled that burning question. In the course of the discussion upon that Bill the Gentlemen who then sat on the Front Opposition Bench said that if the measure were made a voluntary one they would not oppose. The present Leader of the House said that he felt great sympathy for those tenants, and that in the interest of order and good government something ought to be done for them. This Government had ample opportunity and power to settle the question. It had been said that no contentious business would be introduced. If the right hon. Gentleman introduced a short measure of two or three clauses, he could settle this evicted tenants question, on a permanent footing, without
  968
  raising contention in any quarter of the House. He held, in all sincerity, that it was a great deal more to the interest of the right hon. Gentleman, and his six years of Unionist Government in Ireland, than to the interest of anybody else, that he should settle this question in a generous fashion. The right hon. Gentleman desired to conciliate the confidence of the Irish people. He did not believe the right hon. Gentleman would succeed in doing it—[Nationalist cheers]—but surely nothing could give him a better chance of effecting that object than to do a thing that would strike the Irish people as a gracious act at the outset of his administration. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that nothing would touch the hearts of the Irish people more than a generous measure of relief for the evicted tenants; and he urged the right hon. Gentleman, before he closed his mind on the subject, to ascertain how far he could go in that direction without raising contention amongst his own followers. There were two matters he would urge on the attention of the Chief Secretary. One was that he would modify Clauses 13 of the Act of 1891, so that the Land Commission could bring the landlords and evicted tenants together, and act as a kind of arbitrator between them; and the other was that he would introduce into his proposed Bill a clause appropriating a sum of money from the Irish Church Fund, which could be practically given to the evicted tenants to rebuild their houses now in ruins, and partly to the landlords, for the losses they have sustained through those evicted farms. He did not for a moment believe that the landlords would do otherwise than extend a warm acceptance to such a proposal. He believed that most of the tenants who had gone back to their farms under recent settlements would inevitably be evicted again in the course of the next few years, because they had no money to put up new buildings, or to properly stock their lands. What was

  969
  the use of trying to settle the question in that fashion? If the Government tried to settle it on those lines, they would only be preparing for themselves fresh anxieties and fresh difficulties in the future. [Nationalist cheers.] There was another matter which he would urge on the attention of the Chief Secretary when he went to Ireland. There were between 30,000 and 40,000 tenants in Ireland who had been evicted under what was known as "the eviction-made-easy clause" of the Land Act of 1887. They were, it was true, left in possession of their holdings, but they were deprived of their rights under the Land Act of 1881, and they remained a source of trouble and danger, believing, as they did, that they had been most cruelly and brutally treated. That clause had been supported by the hon. Member for South Tyrone; but, very recently, the hon. Gentleman frankly stated to the House that, after five or six years' experience of the working of the clause, he found it worked with grave injustice, and that some indemnity was due to the tenants. He had no doubt that the Chief Secretary would do some things that would be good for Ireland. He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would spend freely, as his brother had done before him, from the English Treasury, on light railways and other excellent projects of that kind. Ireland always got a great deal more out of a Tory Government than out of a Liberal Government. [Unionist cheers.] The Tory Government insisted on the maintenance of what they called law and order, but they always gilded the pill. That happened in the case of the right hon. Gentleman's brother. The present Leader of the House governed Ireland for six years with a strong hand; but towards the close of his administration he spent money more lavishly in the country than it had ever been spent before. The right hon. Gentleman built railroads, and those railroads were doing a great deal of good. [Unionist cheers.] He had never been
  970
  very friendly with the right hon. Gentleman, but the right hon. Gentleman built 30 miles of a railway through his constituency, which proved a great service to that part of the country. But he did not believe, after all was said and done, that the right hon. Gentleman got the vote of the poorest peasant in Ireland at the General Election in 1892. He hoped the present Chief Secretary would act in like manner; and that he would settle the question of the Christian Brothers, and other questions it was difficult for a Liberal Government to settle. But he told the right, hon. Gentleman—and the right hon. Gentleman would remember his words at the end of his six years of Unionist Government—that he would find when all was over that he had not got one vote more from the Irish people in support of his policy. [Nationalist cheers.]
  MR. FLYNNsaid, he had listened with a keen sense of disappointment to the speech of the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman had a most unique opportunity—an opportunity that had been offered to few Irish Secretaries—and he regretted the right hon. Gentleman had not taken advantage of the opportunity to rise above those prejudices that were the worst traditions of the party to which he belonged. The right hon. Gentleman had a majority of 152 at his back. The Irish Members were prepared to give the right hon. Gentleman every assistance in any remedial legislation he might introduce; and he was sure the Liberals and Radicals would co-operate with them in that policy. Why then should the right hon. Gentleman talk about controversial legislation? There were two measures to which the Irish people looked forward with anxious hope—one was the revision of the judicial rents, and the other the reinstatement of the evicted tenants—and those measures would be regarded as non-contentious by the House generally. He did not know, under the circumstances, how

  971
  the right hon. Gentleman was going to face with any confidence the condition of things that now existed in Ireland. If he had to take a text for his speeches on this occasion, he would take it from a memorable speech made by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who was now a Member of the Government. The hon. Member said:—
  "The Ulster tenants were a patient race, but patience did not last for ever. Let them not drive the Ulster tenants to despair."
  He should substitute "Ireland" for "Ulster" in the words of the hon. Member, and say that the Chief Secretary had sent a message of despair to three-fourths of the agricultural tenants of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said in effect there could be no legislation—unless there were a crisis. He remembered in 1886, that, after an unanswerable case had been made from the Irish Benches for legislation—after proof of great distress, and that the crops had failed or were in danger—the reply made was a blank denial; and the right hon. Member for the City of Dublin wound up his speech by saying that, at any rate, the price of wool had risen. In 1886 there was no crisis, but in 1887 the Government had to bring in a measure for the revision of judicial rents, and then it came too late for a great number of the tenant-farmers. If that measure had come earlier there would have been no combination of tenants; and he appealed to the Chief Secretary to mark these lessons of 1886. In that year there was a fall in prices, and the harvest was bad. He remembered going through the Ponsonby estate and seeing a state of things which was only paralleled by the present. Early in that summer everything was promising, and this year, up to the middle of July, there was a more promising harvest. But in 1886, as in this year, the weather broke in the middle of July, and blight appeared, and the barley crop was hawked about by the farmers, who could
  972
  find no buyers. Finally, on the Ponsonby estate, it had to be sold for pig-feeding. Let the Chief Secretary look outside the officials of the Land Commission for information on this subject. They always returned the same stereotyped answer, suited to the political exigencies of the Government of the day. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman sometimes read the Irish newspapers, even those opposed to his policy. If he read the Irish papers of that day and the day previous he would learn what was the condition of the crops, even in the richest parts of Ireland. Only a fortnight ago, Lord Winchilsea spoke of this year's harvest in England as "the most disastrous on record." The climatic conditions in England were better than in Ireland, and if there were a disastrous harvest in England, what mast there be in Ireland? Every crop had gone, with the single exception of the potato crop. Did the Government intend to blunder on, with more coercion and more disturbance and distress? The present Government had now a unique opportunity, with a peaceable Ireland and a strong majority. A Bill of two or three clauses could be passed in an afternoon in the House of Commons, and would pass in the other House without discussion; and such a Bill would go far to bridging over the interval between the present situation and the passing of the new Land Bill. As to the evicted tenants, it was still a burning question in Ireland. A year ago the late Government attempted to deal with the question, but in another place the measure met the fate which all legislation intended to benefit Ireland met with at one time or another. It was not the fault of the late Government that the question was not settled. But, of course, Parliament last year said that they would be willing to adopt a voluntary measure. The then Opposition were willing to support Mr. Morley's Bill dealing with the evicted tenants, if it was made a voluntary measure. He invited the Chief

  973
  Secretary to seize the opportunity now. What had been the result of Clause 7 of the Act of 1887, intended to deal with evictions? It had done infinite injury in Ireland. It had muffled up the worst horrors of eviction; but the painful effect of eviction remained notwithstanding. Forty thousand persons had been deprived of their tenantright by the insidious operation of that clause. In the first quarter of this year no fewer than 875 families were deprived of their tenancies by that clause, and during the half-year the number had risen to 2,404. Some of these might be reinstated, but the bulk of them were practically at the mercy of the landlord. Their tenancies were forfeited; they had no more rights in the soil than a squatter. Was not that a very dangerous condition of things after the passing of four Land Acts? A large number of these persons would go to swell the number of persons who had been evicted in Ireland. The Government could deal with the question now, while peace prevailed in Ireland; and he invited the Chief Secretary not to wait until he was compelled to deal with it in a time of panic. If Ireland was peaceable the prevailing answer was, "she does not want legislation;" but if she was restless the answer was, "she is not fit for legislation, unless it be of a reprehensive character." He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to make a beginning in his administration of Ireland worthy to secure the confidence of the Irish people. The last Election ought to have taught the Tory Party, as it had taught every thoughtful public man in this country, that, however events might change in Great Britain, the current of public opinion in Ireland flowed steadily on in the direction in which it had flowed for centuries. He and his hon. Friends were willing to assist the right hon. Gentleman in the opportunity which he now had, and he appealed to him to rise to the occasion.
  MR. JASPER TULLYjoined with his hon. Friends in pressing
  974
  on the Government for some legislation to deal with the evicted tenants, and also with the revision of judicial rents. The Irish people, though suffering from bad harvests and low prices for their produce, were still at the mercy of the landlords and the land agents, who demanded the full rent which was fixed when prices were better than they were now. The Irish Members had listened to English Members, representing agricultural constituencies, pleading for something to be done to relieve agricultural distress here. But if land in England had gone out of cultivation on account of agricultural depression, how much stronger was the argument in favour of something being done in the case of Ireland, where the people depended chiefly on agriculture? He regretted that the Chief Secretary had not been able to hold out some hope that he would deal this year with the question of judicial rents. He did not believe they could find a solution of Irish troubles altogether in tinkering with the question of rents; it was to be settled rather on lines of compulsory land purchase. He did not think the case could be met by a mere tinkering with judicial rents that would result in the tenants losing more in law costs than the reductions they would get would amount to for years. As they were told they could not have a reduction of judicial rents to meet the difficulties for the time being they were entitled to have something done to meet the immediate necessities of the case. It was to be hoped the promised Bill to deal with evicted tenants would be a workable Bill, and would do some good: but the problem was beset with many difficulties. In his own constituency efforts had been made by landlords to intensify the present difficulties. For instance, on the estate of Mr. Marsham Jones, in Lower Drumreilly, a number of evictions were carried out in 1883, and the lands were allowed to lie idle. When Mr. Morley promised an Evicted Tenants' Bill, the evicting landlord adopted a plan of speculation with

  975
  the object of defeating the operation of the measure; he planted bogus tenants on the farms. One of these men had no means, and was unable to stock his farm or to pay rent; he was placed under police protection; his home was turned into a police barrack for which rent was paid; and he and his family were employed as police messengers and to do police work. In May last Mr. Morley gave an undertaking that that state of things should not continue, and it was to be hoped the pledge would be carried out by the present Chief Secretary, and that bogus tenants would not be allowed to receive subsidies for the purpose of remaining in occupation and defeating the promised Bill. The right hon. Gentleman rather infelicitously remarked that perhaps those who remained in Ireland were happier because others had emigrated. Unfortunately, the emigration had not been organised, but the landlords had driven out the young and energetic, leaving the old and less helpful who are dependent on the emigrants—a fact which the landlords turned to account. One of them in South Leitrim, early in the year, had sued a number of tenants in the county court for two years' rent, and the judge condemned the landlord, saying that the tenants could not pay two years' rent in such a year as this, adding that there were no diamond mines in Leitrim. But although there are no diamond mines, the landlord knew that they had most of their families in America, England and Scotland, and that these expatriated people would send money to their friends to enable them to remain in their homes. These were the diamond mines the landlords had been working in—the pressure they put upon the people to pay impossible rents. Nationalist Members from Ireland had done their best to mitigate the evils of rack-renting, and he trusted that the Chief Secretary would do something to further mitigate these evils. For his own part he did not care whether good came from a Liberal or Tory
  976
  Government, and he would candidly welcome any efforts to settle the land question which would bring peace and prosperity to their unfortunate country.
  MR. T. LOUGHsaid, the vote for the offices of Chief Secretary for Ireland came to £42,000, while for the Secretary for Scotland it was only £12,000. There were items in the Irish Vote not included in the Scotch, but even allowing for that, they had about£30,000 for the Irish Office against £12,000 for the Scotch Office. Anyone might think Ireland were the richer, more populous and important country. Was this true? On the contrary, the poor law valuation of Ireland was only 13 or 14 millions, while that of Scotland was 26 millions. So a country twice as rich as Ireland only paid half as much for these services as Ireland had to pay. The Secretary for Scotland received a salary of £2,000 a year while the Chief Secretary for Ireland received £4,500. In the exaction of these huge amounts from the unfortunate country they had one of the secrets of the misery that the people of Ireland suffered from. A hundred years ago the taxation of Ireland was the same as now, but the wealth of Ireland was then far greater. Wheat was 80s. a quarter; now it was only 26s. Ireland was an agricultural country then as now. The total taxation for local and Imperial purposes was only two millions, while to-day it was £11,250,000, and this huge sum was made up of extravagant amounts such as he had alluded to. In his opinion Irish Members directed too much attention to the Land Question; he admitted its importance, but the real secret of the poverty of Ireland lay in the increase of taxation that had grown up in the country. The hon. Member for Louth had stated that during the last forty years the taxation of Ireland had been trebled. The population had fallen off, and the poverty of the people had greatly increased. Why should taxation have been increased? The reason

  977
  was that the amount of taxation was fixed by Great Britain alone, which was rich and prosperous. The Committee had been dealing with the Estimates for Scotland. That country shared in the wealth of England, and so did Wales. The whole of Great Britain had developed in population and wealth. That was the country in which the taxes were fixed. These taxes then were imposed upon a country which was getting poorer every day. The traditional Government of England failed to realise the difference between the one country abounding in prosperity and the other which was sinking more and more into misfortune and ruin. Dr. Grimshaw, the Registrar General for Ireland, said the agricultural produce of Ireland was 25 millions less this year than forty years ago. The Chief Secretary might say that Ireland produced more cattle and less crops than in those days, but even the cattle were five millions less. Agriculture was the only source of wealth in Ireland, and according to Dr. Grimshaw's figures the wealth of Ireland had diminished 30 per cent. in the last forty years. It was said the people who remained in Ireland were better off by the departure of those who had emigrated. But the pauperism of Ireland had doubled during the last 30 years. There were 95 paupers in Ireland to every 1,000 of population; in Great Britain there were 22 paupers to every 1,000. Taxation was piled on Ireland as the poverty of the country became more severe. The deposits in the savings banks in Ireland had increased because the interest was 3 per cent. and other banks only allowed 1 per cent. People put their money in the banks because they were unwilling to invest it in cultivating the land. So the increase in the banks' deposits did not prove that the country was richer. The Chief Secretary had said that the improvement in the railway returns showed that the country was more prosperous, but three articles which had lately attracted much attention in the Fortnightly Review traced the whole of the difficulties of Ireland to the mismanagement of railways. The
  978
  railways did not serve the agricultural interest in Ireland well. A Board of Trade was wanted in Ireland which would insist on the railways serving the agricultural interest. The railways in Ireland might be flourishing at the expense of the country. One of the strongest arguments against these hopeful views about the condition of the country was that in Ireland good food, the produce of the farms, was exported, and cheap and bad food was imported for the consumption of the people. For instance, Irish bacon was as good as any that the world produced, but the people did not eat it—it was all exported, and cheap and bad American bacon was imported in its place. Good Irish meal was exported, and the people were compelled to eat inferior Indian meal, which was about the worst food that could be purchased. He desired to support what had been said about the sufferings caused by the present bad season. He had been in Ireland a fortnight ago and he found that the suffering in the country was becoming acute, in a way that the right hon. Gentleman had no idea of, although ho paid all respect to the information which the right hon. Gentleman had obtained. He had received a letter that morning which stated that the sufferings were "really tragic." The drought of May and June had swept away all the grass, and the consequence was that the farmers were compelled to sell half their stock at a great sacrifice. After the drought had come a flood, with the result that the hay and oats crops could not be saved, and the country was at the present moment experiencing the worst weather that they had had for years. It was true that the potato crop was a good one, but that was only Ireland's third crop in importance. Her first and main crop was hay, her second was oats, and potatoes formed her third crop. Undue importance was attached to Ireland's potato crop in this country. Forty years ago that crop was valued at £20,000,000 but now only £7,000,000 worth of potatoes were grown. The Irish farmers now depended upon hay,

  979
  oats, cattle, pigs and butter. The hay crop had failed, and oats and butter had fallen enormously in price. The result was that the situation of Ireland was one that demanded the most serious consideration on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. He fully admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had shown that he was quite willing to inquire into the matter. He had referred to the extravagance of the present Estimates, but the most cruel part of the whole matter was that, if these wasteful, almost immorally extravagant, Estimates were to be reduced, it would afford no relief to Ireland. Let them take the case of the Irish police huts; the police were the one prosperous institution in the country, and its members were fat, comfortable, and well fed. The circumstances in which Ireland was placed were so malicious and cruel, that, if they were to reduce the Estimates, they would make the evil to the people greater and not less. It was the taxation of the country that ought to be reduced. There was no fiscal unity between Ireland and Great Britain now, but the differences were such as did not help Ireland, and they ought to try and suit the burden to the back of Ireland. The heavy taxation imposed upon that country during the last 40 years was the most sordid form that the oppression of Ireland had taken. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would try and deal with this question, and would take some steps that would relieve Ireland from the unjust burdens that now oppressed her.
  MR. P. J. POWERsaid, that he had not the advantage of listening to the speech of the Chief Secretary, but, as far as he could gather, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that, in the Recess, it would be his duty to consider the provisions of a large Purchase Bill. As one who was anxious to see the dual system end as far as possible in Ireland, he would warn the
  980
  right hon. Gentleman against the reenactment of the increased instalments of the first five years. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had advocated emigration as one of the great cures applicable to Ireland.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, that he referred to the time when population was more numerous than the land could bear, and to the fact that some of that population having emigrated, left the rest happier than before.
  MR. POWER,continuing, said, that so far from emigration being good for Ireland, it only did her further injury; and, in his opinion, the view and aim of everyone interested in Ireland should be to stop the hæmorrhage of the nation's life-blood, and their aim should be to keep the people at home. He hoped that the Government would make some effort to tide over the coming winter in Ireland. They were often twitted with loving the life of agitators, but if hon. Members opposite knew the life of an Irish agitator they would not think it a luxurious one. It had been burnt into the souls of the people of Ireland that nothing had been done for the past hundred years for the good of Ireland until the country had been on the very eve of rebellion. This was the case with the land legislation of the Conservatives, and he hoped that the action of the present Government would not further impress that view upon the Irish race. The evicted farms were a running sore in Ireland, and unless something was done to bring about the reinstatement of the men who had been evicted, they could not look forward to peace in the coming winter. He suggested that the Land Commission might be brought in as an intermeditary or third party to a settlement. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman had, from his own point of view, a golden opportunity. He had a large majority; he had the assurance from the Liberal and from the Irish Benches that if a non-contentious Bill were now brought forward dealing with

  981
  the points that had been raised, it would be considered in no captious mood; and he was strong enough, owing to the largeness of his majority, to dispense with those who were inclined to be unreasonable. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman did, he would not be able to change the sentiment of the Irish people in regard to Home Rule. Did anyone contend that if they had a Legislature of their own, this winter would be passed without their bringing forward some measure to assist the Irish farmers? He believed that it was in the interests of those who did believe in a Unionist system to legislate at once in the true interests of the Irish people.
  DR. TANNERsaid, that the question of the housing of Irish labourers was a burning question, not merely in his own constituency but in all parts of Ireland. The housing of labourers had been dealt with, but insufficiently, and as far as the allotment of land was concerned, it had been dealt with inequitably and injudiciously. If that House passed a Bill in favour of granting to the Irish labourer the acre of land, why should not that which had been granted by the House be carried into execution? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would pay attention to this matter, and remedy the standing injustice that obtained in connection with the position of these labourers. Immense difficulty was thrown in the way of obtaining a cottage and an allotment of land for the Irish labourer, but, if the matter was dealt with seriously and with less red tape, he maintained that these benefits could be obtained. The labourer in portions of the rich lands of Limerick was not on the same footing as one of his own poor constituents in the highlands of County Cork. He drew no invidious distinctions in the matter, but he pointed out how great were the law expenses, and the distances which witnesses had to travel in order to have the whole question settled in Dublin, instead of at the nearest legal centre. He had
  982
  put the matter clearly before several of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors hoping that something would be done, and that at any rate the courts of the County Court Judges might be made use of, instead of having all these matters settled at Dublin with much expense and delay. He had listened to what the right hon. Gentleman had said with a certain amount of dismay. The weather in all districts of Ireland had been bad. It had been raining almost continuously, and he was told that the grain crops were flat and the hay destroyed. He heard also that all the Boards of Guardians in the extensive County of Cork said that the judicial rents under existing conditions could not be paid during the ensuing winter, and that something should be done. He therefore laid the matter before the right hon. Gentleman and the House. It was also asked that loans should be granted to farmers—small loans at a reasonable rate of interest. They gave money to Armenia, and they spent money in China, and he admitted that these countries called for their sympathy, but Charity commenced at home, that was if they recognised her. He would ask the Chief Secretary to let his mind apply to this. All they asked was that what could be done, should be done. In the words of the old Scottish song:—
  "Now's the day, and now's the hour."
  Let it not pass. Let matters be amicably arranged. Let not the right hon. Gentleman be led astray from the path of duty. The greatest duty imposed on any ruler was his duty towards God's poor. If the right hon. Gentleman happened to be the ruler for the time being over a poor nation, let him recognise the words of his distinguished precedessor, Drummond—let him think of the necessities of the nation. Was it always to be a case of landlord and tenant? They had now an opportunity of showing what could be done if the labourers were satisfied, if the evicted tenants were restored, if the

  983
  farmers were satisfied; their position would be very different from what it was. Do not let the golden moment fly, and go back to coercion. He was not going to say one word which could offend. He was only appealing to the right hon. Gentleman, who had spoken calmly and quietly, as he sincerely hoped he was trying to do. ["Hear, hear!"] Let him try to rise above these minor points and deal with the labourers almost first, if not first, dealing with the evicted tenants at the same time. [Laughter.] He wished to draw no invidious distinctions. [Renewed laughter.] If hon. Members had the opportunity of going through Ireland and seeing many of the poor labourers' cottages and the hovels in which the evicted tenants live, they would be less inclined to laugh. But he did not mind the laugh; they were only new Members, and did not quite understand the subject.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid, the Chief Secretary's speech was devoted, not to the exposition of the policy of his party, but to a criticism of the various suggestions which had proceeded from the Irish Benches, and the right hon. Gentleman either flatly rejected these suggestions, or declared his inability to form an opinion upon them. The suggestions made by Irish Members were divided into two categories—those which related to the more pressing wants of Irish life, and those whose consideration might be postponed till next Session. They were compelled to press on the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of taking some steps even this Session for dealing with the perennial Irish land question. Now, as in 1886, they found the demands of the Irish Members rejected; but whereas ten years ago they had nothing to rely upon but their own experience of what was going on, this year their demands were fortified by the Report of the Committee of the House, which declared that the Irish land question was one of urgency by reason of the expiry of the statutory term. The
  984
  Chief Secretary denied that there was any necessity for legislating on the subject this year. But that depended on the character of the legislation. If it was to follow the lines of Mr. Morley's Land Bill, which proposed to reduce the statutory term to ten years, then it would make an enormous difference to the Irish tenant whether the change was carried into effect this year or next. Were they to assume that the right hon. Gentleman had definitely made up his mind to reject the proposal in the Bill of the late Government reducing the statutory term: and, if so, were they to take it that the hon. Member for South Tyrone concurred in the conclusion? If it was not so, how could the right hon. Gentleman say that it made no difference whether legislation was passed now or next year? At any rate, in view of the anxiety which the question excited in Ireland, and its admitted urgency, they might expect to have some pledge from the right hon. Gentleman as to the time when the next Session was to open. This was a question affecting not a small section of the Irish tenants, but almost every tenant north, south, east and west. It was a matter which was admitted on all hands to be of urgency, and yet they got no kind of assurance that they would secure an early sitting of Parliament to deal with it. In the natural course of things, if Parliament opened in the month of January or February, the right hon. Gentleman would have no chance or prospect of passing his land legislation into law before July or August; and it was trifling with an important subject like this to throw it over for a period of 12 months in the face of such an agricultural crisis as the present. He would not say it was equal to that of 1886, but without going into any comparison, the fact must be admitted by anybody who was at all acquainted with the circumstances of agriculture in Ireland, that the prospect before the Irish tenants was as gloomy as it could be. The potatocrop was

  985
  a good one, but important as the potato crop was as providing against a want of food, it was very unimportant when they came to deal with the question of rent, because there was none of the crops in which the Irish tenant embarked his capital and labour which was so unprofitable in the matter of rent paying. Yet with such a gloomy prospect before them, with a Report of a Parliamentary Committee pressing the urgency of this question, here were Ministers, at the beginning of the Parliament of 1895, as they were at the beginning of the Parliament of 1886, opposing the demand of the Irish Members for legislation on a question involving the happiness and the lives of millions of the Irish people. He would refer to another topic with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt in his speech. The right hon. Gentleman made an apologetic reference to the action of the House of Lords upon the Municipal Franchise Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is true that I allowed that discussion to go on for a short time. The charge was made and the answer given, but it would be out of order to continue the discussion any longer. And if the discussion proceeded upon what took place in the other House during the last Parliament, that would be still more out of order.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid he neither proposed to discuss the terms of the Municipal Franchise Bill, nor the action of the House of Lords upon it. What he was discussing was the right hon. Gentleman's Irish policy, and he was merely pointing out that while the right hon. Gentleman was ready to make an apology for the House of Lords, he took care not to tell the Committee what the Government intended to do with regard to that Bill. For 20 years, he might almost say 50 years—for Englishmen had enjoyed the same benefit for 50 years—for 20 years Irishmen had been year after year refused any measure of the kind, and now, when the question was raised at the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's régime, he was ready enough to make an apology for the House of Lords and Lord Cadogan, but would give the Committee no indication whatever of what the Government intended to do in the near future. That was the attitude of the
  986
  right hon. Gentleman. When the Irish Members made definite proposals calling for legislation on urgent questions in this Session in which they were now engaged, the right hon. Gentleman opposed to them a flat negative; and when they demanded to know what was to be the action of the Government, he told them he was not prepared with an answer. Supposing England were governed by an Irish Minister who met the demands of English Members for a declaration of policy regarding their country, with the statement that he knew nothing about England and that he would prepare a scheme when he had learned something about it, would not Englishmen consider the position humiliating to them? The right hon. Gentleman said that the Irish Members did not press the land question forward during the lifetime of the late Government. The right hon. Member was in error. They did press the question upon the attention of the Government, and they obtained the appointment of a Committee to inquire into it, and a Bill would have been passed, but for the action of the Party represented by hon. Members opposite. Then, whatever might have been the faults of the late Government, they at any rate had pledged themselves to effect a final cure for Irish grievances by handing over the Government of the country to the Irish people. The late Government no doubt deserved criticism in many matters, but Irishmen would be very ungrateful if they ever forgot the fact that that Government recognised their just claim to self government and strove to give effect to it. The right hon. Gentleman had pledged himself to bring in a Bill to re-enact Clause 13 of the Act of 1891, for the benefit of the evicted tenants. When that clause was originally passed into law, he was glad, because he believed its enactments, promoted by the hon. Member for South Tyrone and the hon. Member for South Hunts, afforded evidence of conciliatory spirit among the Irish landlords. In the end, however, it was found that that spirit was absent, and the result was that the clause proved to be useless, almost a nullity. If the landlords were going to adopt the same attitude now, the House would be merely wasting time by re-enacting the clause. The right hon. Member therefore would

  987
  do well to put pressure upon his landlord supporters from Ireland in order to bring them to a reasonable frame of mind in their dealings with the tenants. If there really was a disposition among the landlords to reinstate their tenants, a great deal could be done to facilitate the process by making a Treasury grant for the purpose, such as was proposed in Mr. Morley's Bill two years ago. No doubt if the hon. Member for South Hunts could bring his friends in Ireland to a better frame of mind, and induce them to deal justly with their tenants, some good might be done by the re-enactment of the 13th Clause. He further wished to call attention to the constitution and powers of the Irish Fishery Board, and pressed on the Chief Secretary the importance of doing for Ireland something like that which was done for Scotland by the Scotch Fishery Board. To begin with, for the Scotch Fishery Board, Parliament voted something like £26,000 a year, whereas the Vote for the Irish Fisheries amounted to only £5,000. And it was not only the amount of the Vote. The Scottish Fishery Board appeared to be doing every year more and more excellent work in bringing about the prosperity of the Scottish fisheries. He was sorry to say he could say nothing of the kind with regard to the body which exists in Ireland. In Scotland, the whole machinery was directed to fostering the fisheries, whereas the Irish Board was little better than a body of fishery police, making regulations of a narrow and limited character. Whereas the Scottish Board dealt more with sea than with fresh-water fisheries, the Irish Board took cognisance almost entirely of the freshwater fisheries, and sea fisheries, which ought to be the more important, were utterly neglected by them, and he doubted whether they had jurisdiction over them at all. Thus, they had this unfortunate state of things in Ireland, that a purely agricultural country had nothing in the shape of a Board of Agriculture, and similarly, in regard to the next most important industry, the sea fisheries, whereas they had in England and Scotland bodies set up to watch over the interests of the sea fisheries, nothing of the kind was provided for Ireland. In Scotland, for example, a considerable sum was spent every year by the Scottish
  988
  Fishery Board in branding the Scotch herrings, and all Scottish Members were agreed that the prosperity of the industry there had been largely promoted by that state of things. ["Hear, hear!"] Over and over again, Irish Members had asked that a similar arrangement should be established in the case of Ireland. Within the last 12 months, the Irish Fish Curing Association made strong representations, calling for a similar system to be set up, but of course nothing of the kind was done. The right hon. Gentleman had declared his policy to be one of looking after the industrial resources and promoting the material prosperity of Ireland. He hoped he would give his attention to this important matter of the Irish fisheries. So far as the prosperity of the Irish fisheries were concerned, they might just as well have no Fishery Inspectors at all, and refuse to vote this £5,000 a year. When Sir Thomas Brady was illegally compelled to retire from his office on the Irish Fishery Board some few years ago, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, who was then Chief Secretary, thought that a fitting substitute would be found for him by appointing to the position a resident magistrate, whose sole qualification was, that he had acquired an evil reputation in the coercion courts set up by the right hon. Gentleman. He hoped the Chief Secretary would make the Fishery Department an efficient instrument for promoting the fishing industry of Ireland. The efforts of the Department were at present almost entirely confined to the fresh-water fishery. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to set up in Ireland something in the nature of the Scottish Fishery Board, and promote in that way the prosperity of the Irish sea coast fisheries.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURhoped the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken would not think it was out of any want of respect to them if he did not refer to what they had said, much of which had been either arguments in reply to his own speech or else merely restatements of what had been already said. He thought, however, some answer was due to the hon. Member who had just sat down, and who had raised a new point in connection with the Irish fishery. He was as anxious as the hon. Member could be to develop this, which was amongst the

  989
  most important of Irish industries. ["Hear, hear!"] He was rather inclined to think the hon. Gentleman had underrated what had been already done in Ireland, and he was not sure that he had at all accurately described what was now being done in England and Scotland. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that he would inquire fully into the subject, and if he found there was room for improvement, no effort should be wanting on his part to effect it. ["Hear, hear!"]
  DR. TANKER: What about the labourers?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, the hon. Member for Mid Cork had raised a question as to the Labourers' Dwellings Act. [Dr. TANNER: "And allotments."] There had been certain difficulties to encounter, but the matter was now under the consideration of the Local Government Board. He trusted that those difficulties would be removed by administrative action, and if not, then by legislation. ["Hear, hear!"]
  DR. TANNER: Under the circumstances, I beg to move a reduction of the Vote by £1,000 in respect of the Chief Secretary's salary.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I beg to move that the question be now put. [Cheers.]
  The question having been put from the Chair,
  DR. TANNER (who remained seated): On a point of order, Mr. Lowther, I beg to state that the right hon. Gentleman was too late. [Laughter.]
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to state I shall raise the whole question on the——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I have already informed the hon. Member that that is not a point of order.
  DR. TANNER: Thank you [Laughter.]
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 147; Noes, 47.—(Division List, No 25.)
  Question put accordingly
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 152; Noes, 40.—(Division List, No. 26.)
  On the Vote of £939, to complete the sum for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland,
  MR. T. M. HEALYsuggested, that out of the remaining six Votes in this class the Government might get four, but the others should be postponed until to-morrow. The Vote of the Irish Local Government Board and the Public Works Vote, for example, would raise some points for discussion; but the remaining Votes might be obtained by the Government at a reasonable hour. He formally moved to report progress.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYthought the Committee would Feel that at the time of the year at which they had arrived, some effort should be made by the Committee, even at some personal sacrifice, to wind up the Session [Cheers.] He gathered that this was the view of the hon. Member himself, and it was in that sense, no doubt, the suggestion had been made. But in order to carry out the general view he had expressed, he thought it was necessary that the Government should get the Irish Votes in all classes to-night and to-morrow, or at least by to-morrow night. It must be remembered that if the administration in Ireland were to be criticised, it would be that of Mr. Morley, and it would probably offer to hon. Members opposite less material for criticism than the Administration of other Irish Secretaries had done. He hoped they might finish the Irish Votes to-morrow. He should be glad to take the four Votes offered them to-night, then take the Report of Supply, and tomorrow take the remaining Votes in this class and all other Irish Votes. If that plan met with general approbation, he should be happy to adopt it.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, there seemed to be some misunderstanding as to what the suggestion was. There remained in this and other classes 13 Irish Votes, and the right hon. Gentleman could hardly expect them to assent to the suggestion that all should be disposed of to-morrow, seeing that they included Votes for law charges and for the constabulary, and Wednesday was a short day. The Irish Members had no disposition to prolong the Session; they

  991
  wanted to get home; but they wanted something to take with them.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had made one mistake in assuming the shortness of Wednesday, which, so far as the actual time at their disposal was concerned, had in it the capacity of being the longest day in the week. [Laughter.] He hoped it would be a short one, and that they would rise at a reasonable hour; but, if they were to sit only a reasonable number of days, it appeared that they must sit an unreasonable number of hours.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Leader of the House to be reasonable. The Nationalist Members were prepared to pass the ten contentious Votes, but, with regard to others, it was an unheard of thing to attempt to force them over the heads of the Irish Members. It would be contrary to the pledges given when the Twelve o'clock Rule was suspended.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsuggested that there should be a distinct understanding that the Irish Votes be finished on Thursday.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he and his friends were most anxious to meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman, and they would be willing to accede to his suggestion on the understanding that if there was anything abnormal in the Votes additional time would be granted to them to consider it.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, he would endeavour to afford facilities on Report.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he understood the Irish Votes would be finished on Thursday, and that the Report stage of the Chief Secretary's Vote would be taken at a reasonable hour.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: At a reasonable—not abnormally late hour. We must see what progress is made with the English Votes. But the finishing of the Irish Votes on Thursday is a pledge binding on both sides of the House. ["Hear, hear!"]
  DR. TANNERasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Vote of £2,974, to complete the sum for the Public Record Office, Ireland,
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that the Irish Records were in a scandalous condition. They could be easily dealt with by a man like Dr. Hyde, who had done more for Irish literature than any other man in the world, and who would do the work at an expense of a few hundred pounds. The Government should take hold of some competent scholar of the country and put him into the Record Office, where his work would be a labour of love. Some of the work which had been in hand for ten or twelve years should be expedited, and he thought that more men should be put on with this object.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he would be happy to give his best consideration to the suggestions of the hon. and learned Member, and he trusted that the result would be that he would be able to give effect to the hon. and learned Member's wishes.
  Vote agreed to.
  Vote of £8,780, to complete the sum for Registrar General's Office, Ireland—agreed to.
  Vote of £6,504, to complete the sum for Valuation and Boundary Survey, Ireland—agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported this day; Committee to sit again this day.

  SUPPLY (26TH AUGUST).
  Resolutions reported.
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPART- MENTS ESTIMATES, 1895–6.

  CLASS II.
  Resolution,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £11,473, 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 the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and of the Office of Laud Revenue Records and Inrolments"—
  Postponed.
  Other Resolutions agreed to.

  PUBLIC OFFICES (ACQUISITION OF SITE).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. HANBURYproposed:—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, in such sums, not exceeding in the whole £450,000, as may ho required by the Commissioners of Works for the purchase of certain lands in Westminster for a site for public offices."
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, the sum involved was £450,000, and this showed the way in which it was proposed to lavish money on the Metropolis—a great Metropolis, no doubt. If a trifle were asked for the Metropolis of Ireland it was resisted, and articles would appear in every paper; but here they were granting nearly half a million in a whisk after midnight for the English Metropolis.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Further Resolved:—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to borrow money for meeting the sums so to be issued, and to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the service of the Commissioner of Works, or (if those moneys are insufficient) out of the Consolidated Fund, of any annuity required for the repayment of such loan."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Resolutions to be reported this day.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: When shall we see the Bill on this subject?
  MR. HANBURY: As soon as it can be printed.

  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY (GUARANTEE).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. HANBURY MR. HANBURY moved:—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to guarantee the Interest, at the rate of Three per cent., on £260,000 of the capital of the West Highland Railway Company, and to pay a sum of money, not exceeding £30,000, to that Company; and to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, and (if those moneys are insufficient) out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums as may be necessary for those purposes."
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, this was a Resolution which they could not allow to pass without discussion. [A laugh.] It was a contentious proposal, and they ought to have some explanation. He did not think the introduction of this Bill was likely to facilitate a speedy termination of the Session. The first ground on which he held that this was a contentious measure was the ground of precedent. An identical proposal was made in the spring of this year, and when the late Government was defeated it was included in the category of contentious measures which were abandoned. He thought they wore entitled to claim that what, with the assent of the present Leader of the House, was regarded as contentious in June could not be otherwise than contentious in August. But there was another ground. So far as they knew, the only reason why the Government pushed forward this measure now, was a promise given in his letter to one of the promoters of the railway, Mr. Cameron, of Lochiel. The right hon. Gentleman had declined to give the date of the letter.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I did not know the date.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, the facts, so far as the public were aware, were these. On the day before the polling for Inverness-shire, a statement was made at a political meeting held in support of the present Member, to the effect that Mr. Cameron had got an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the words of the right hon. Gentleman's letter—
  "that he would do his best to pass a Bill for providing for a Government guarantee when Parliament met in August"—
  were quoted in some of the Scotch newspapers. He thought the very fact of the promise being given on such an occasion, and announced in such a way, put the Bill into the category of contentious measures. The Bill was contentious on other grounds. Parliament had never had an opportunity since the subject of Government aid was broached, of discussing the proposals on their merits, though the subject was a highly important one, both financially and politically. The policy involved in the Bill had never

  995
  been discussed in the House of Commons, and that showed that it could be fairly looked upon as contentious. He knew that some lion. Members took the line that the Government were taking the very serious step of committing the House of Commons to the policy of State aid to railways in the poorer parts of Great Britain. That was a new policy, involving important principles and far-reaching consequences, and surely a Bill containing such a principle ought to be reckoned as a contentious measure, and ought not to be pushed through in the small hours of the morning in this short Session of Parliament. He never should have objected to the Government endeavouring to push the matter forward in a regular business Session. Indeed, after what had been said on the subject by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was only to be expected that they should do so; but what he objected to was that they should endeavour to push it through during this short Session of Parliament as a non-contentious measure. They ought not to be obliged to take a single stage of this Bill at the present moment, because they had no papers going further than July 29, 1892, on this subject, and they were promised further correspondence between the Treasury and the promoters since that time. He did not think it was fair that the House should be asked to signify its assent to the important policy involved in the Bill until they had obtained the fullest possible information upon its proposals. On these grounds he had ventured very shortly to contend that the Bill could not fairly be considered a non-contentious measure, and he earnestly appealed to the Members of the Government not to proceed with it further.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Member has opposed this proposal on two grounds. In the first place he says that it indicates a new policy with regard to railways in Great Britain. If it be so, at any rate it is a policy which to my mind Great Britain has quite as fair a right to claim as ever Ireland had. The proposal is the outcome of an inquiry held in 1891, and the guarantee proposed in the Bill was originally authorised by my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, when he filled
  996
  the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. According to the recommendation of a Committee, this was the only means of securing the construction of this railway, which would not only be of great advantage to the crofters and farmers of the district, but would also promote greatly the fishing interests of the people of the Western Highlands. At that time, those interested in the question were not able to subscribe to the conditions which my right hon. Friend very properly laid down. Subsequently, the matter was again considered, and while the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire was Chancellor of the Exchequer, the North British Railway Company undertook to work this railway in perpetuity, provided a guarantee of 3 per cent, were given on £260,000. But, owing to the arrangements made, by which 50 per cent. of the gross traffic receipts are to be paid to the Government, the whole charge to the country from that guarantee is certainly not likely to be as much as 3 per cent. on £260,000. That is the proposal made now. The hon. Member said that this was treated as a contentious matter last Session. I cannot agree with him. What occurred last Session was this: When my predecessor had entered into an agreement—I think in May last—with the railway company concerned, that this guarantee should be given, a notice of a Resolution was placed on the Paper to bring in a Bill to carry out the agreement. The hon. Member who has just sat down, or some other hon. Member, thereupon gave notice of opposition, and consequently, under the blocking rule, the matter could not come on after 12 o'clock. That is the amount of opposition that was offered last Session to this proposal. The hon. Member charges me with having done something like a political job in endeavouring to carry out the promise of my predecessor. I could do nothing else. The Government of the country is bound by promises of this kind made by their predecessors. The hon. Member says that my promise to fulfil the obligation of my predecessor was made use of at a political meeting. I would ask him why, on the other side, candidates did not make equal use of the promise of the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire? Was it because they thought that possibly some of the

  997
  electors concerned might be disposed to believe that we were more likely to fulfil our promises than our predecessors? I trust the hon. Member will not further oppose this Motion. All that we ask for to-night is the power to place this Bill, by means of this Resolution, before the House. The Papers to which the hon. Member has alluded will be presented shortly. I hope that they will be in the hands of Members before the Second Reading of the Bill is moved. He will then see the correspondence that has passed, and will understand that this is not a "political job," but an attempt to carry out a promise made in perfect good faith by our predecessors in office for the benefit of a poor and neglected district of Great Britain.
  DR. CLARKsaid, that this was a contentious matter, which never got beyond the stage of Report in the last Parliament. Since the proposal was first made, a private Bill had been brought in and had become an Act, by which the North British Railway Company had taken upon themselves to carry out the promise given to make a railway. He did not know whether he supported the Bill or not, but he thought the different stages of the Resolution and also the first Reading of the Bill should be allowed, in order that the House might know what the Government proposed. He objected to his hon. Friend preventing them getting the Bill into their hands. At the Second Reading of the Bill, they could discuss the principle. The present Government, when in power three or four years ago, began this system of grants, and one grant they made was one he should have opposed. It was a grant of, he thought, £40,000 to the Highland Railway—a rich company, paying a 6 per cent. dividend—to continue their line from Strome Ferry to Kyllachy. What the Government now apparently proposed to do was this—having given £40,000 to the Highland Railway Company to make the line down to Kyllachy, they were now going to give £260,000 for another line which would compete with the railway they had already subsidised. They would have two lines running very nearly side by side and competing with one another. However that might be, they should allow all the stages of the
  998
  present Resolution to pass, and then, on the Second Reading, they could discuss the principle of the Bill.
  MR. E. STRACHEY, hoped his hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen would press his objection to a division. As an English Member he entirely objected to the way the Government was quite ready to vote a large guarantee for making a railway in Scotland. The reason he ventured to urge for not proceeding with this railway was that they had not sufficient information. The information they had was only down to July 1892. Papers had been promised them and they ought to have them at once. What they were asked to do was to sanction the principle of guaranteeing the interest on a large sum of money, and making a free grant of £30,000 for a railway and harbour in Scotland. They ought on every possible opportunity to refuse to sanction the principle of constructing or partially constructing railways by the aid of Imperial funds until the Government had made up their mind whether they meant to deal with this question throughout the whole country. The other day he opposed an increased grant in a similar way for Ireland, and until this policy was settled for the whole country, it was certainly right that those who represented English constituencies should protest against this policy of piecemeal legislation. He hoped his hon. Friend would press his opposition to a division, and he should certainly support him in the Division Lobby against this principle of giving more money to Ireland and Scotland and doing nothing for England.
  MR. T. M. HEALYobserved that, as he understood from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, an Act of a private character had been passed either by the North British or the West Highland Company. If this Act was passed, it must have passed the Private Bill Committee of that House, with the assurance from the promoters that they were able to make the line, otherwise it would have been the duty of the Private Bill Committee to have rejected the scheme, and they should have the opportunity of seeing what was the evidence upon which the Private Bill Committees in the Lords and Commons enabled this scheme to go through. The Chancellor

  999
  of the Exchequer said the offer of a guarantee under certain conditions, as he had said, was originally made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, about 1892. At the time the promoters were unable to fulfil the conditions required. They then applied for a private Bill to Parliament, placing before the Committee which considered the Private Bill the fact that the Government had made this promise of these conditions. The Committee came to the conclusion they might reasonably be satisfied that the Government of the day would be willing to carry out the promise of their predecessors, supposing those conditions were fulfilled, and they therefore passed the Bill. The conditions were fulfilled, and the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire carried out the promise of the Government. None of these matters were dealt with at all in private Acts. There was passed a General Act of a public character which enabled private companies to annex the lines. If they looked at the Midland or Great Southern or Great Northern Acts they would not find anything in them affecting the light railways in question. They did, however, find public Acts which enabled private companies to take over Government lines. Such a state of things ought not to be tolerated for a moment. Surely a Bill ought not to be squeezed through the House upon a promise made to a Select Committee. He would like to know the name of the Select Committee to whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his promise, and would like to see the evidence which influenced the Select Committee to pass the Bill. If private Bills affecting railway companies were to be squeezed through the House by reason of the momentum given to them by the promise of financial aid made by a Minister, there was an end to the independence of Select Committees. This West Highland Railway might be a line competing with the North British and the Caledonian. He would not like
  1000
  to vote against any Bill calculated to help the Scotch crofters, but he did not like the look of the present transaction. Some time ought to be afforded for the discussion of the matter in all its bearings at a further stage of the Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: We are quite willing to afford the time.
  Resolution agreed to.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  MR. HANBURYasked for leave to bring in a Bill to grant money for the purpose of certain local loans.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked what was the object of the Bill.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, one of the principal objects of the Bill was to appoint Public Works Loans Commissioners, who had to be re-appointed every five years, and whose term of office would expire on the 31st of March of next year.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Are they three Tories?
  MR. HANBURY: One of the colleagues of the hon. Gentleman is appointed a Commissioner. The sum proposed in the Bill was exactly the same as that proposed in the Bill of last year.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hanbury and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer; presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 2.]
  Whereupon, Mr. Speaker, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 19th August, adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at Twenty minutes after One o'clock.