Commons Sitting of 28 February 1896

LIGHTHOUSE, &c. (LOCAL INSPECTIONS).
Copies presented, of Reports to the Board of Trade by the Trinity House of Deptford Strond, the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, and the Commissioners of Irish Lights, of their Inspection of Local Lighthouses, Buoys, and Beacons (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 230, of Session 1895) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 81.]
PIERS AND HARBOURS (PROVISIONAL ORDERS).
Copy presented, of Report of the Board of Trade of their Proceedings under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, and the General Pier and Harbour Act (1861) Amendment Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 82.]
UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT,1889 (ORDNANCE No. 148).
Copy presented, of Ordnance made by the Scottish Universities Commissioners, Regulations for Degrees in Arts (Supplementary to Ordinances, Nos. 11 and 44) (Ordinance, No. 148, General, No. 33) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 83.]
DEATH DUTIES.
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 25th February; Mr. Gibson Bowles]; to lie upon the Table.
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (ILLITERATE VOTERS) GENERAL ELECTION,1895).
Return presented, relative thereto [Address 20th August, 1895; Mr. R. G. Webster]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 84.]

UNIVERSITY COLLEGES (GREAT BRITAIN).
Copy ordered—
"Of Treasury Minute, dated the 3rd day of October, 1895, directing that King's College, London, may be placed in enjoyment of its share of the Grant for University Colleges in Great Britain without any stipulation as regards tests.—(Mr. Hunbury.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 85.]

NAVAL WORKS (CONSOLIDATED FUND).
Committee to consider of making provision for the construction of works and acquisition of land in the United Kingdom and elsewhere for the purposes of the Royal Navy, and of authorising the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums as may be necessary for these purposes (Queen's Recommendation signified), upon Monday next.—(Mr. Goschen.)

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS, &c.
Lords Message [18th February], communicating the following Resolution, viz.; That it is desirable that all Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills of the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, considered.
Resolved, That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution.
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.—(The Attorney General).

QUESTIONS.

  BRITISH COLONIES.
  LIEUT.-GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received Copies of the Resolutions stated to have been passed unanimously by the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada, and by the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, also of the Dispatch reported to have been sent by the Government of

  1367
  the Australian Colonies through the Premier of New South Wales, also of a similar Dispatch from the Government of New Zealand, assuring Her Majesty and the Government of the United Kingdom of their unswerving determination to make every sacrifice to perpetuate their connection with the British Empire; and whether, if received, he will lay the full texts of these communications upon the Table for the information of this House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,)said, I have received copies of the Australasian Resolutions referred to, but the Canadian Resolutions have not yet reached me. When the latter have been received there will be no objection to laying all on the Table.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: May I ask whether any notice can be taken of the fact that, on the passing of the Resolution in the Canadian House of Commons, the whole Assembly rose and sang "God save the Queen?" [Nationalist laughter.]
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I would ask whether it is not a fact that the Legislative Body who had made the loyal demonstration referred to have complete management of their own internal affairs—in fact, Home Rule?
  [No answer was given.]

  FIGHTING IN EAST AFRICA.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any information can be given to the House as to the recent fighting on several distinct occasions on the coast of British East Africa, and as to the prospect of peace being in future preserved upon that coast?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): In April, 1895, a native chief, named Mubarakbin Rashid, rebelled against the administration. He has suffered repeated defeats; but, owing to the nature of the country, it has hitherto proved impossible to deal effectually with the roving bands of marauders who have followed his lead, and who fall on unprotected or weakly-held positions,
  1368
  and have on two occasions made attacks upon military stations, which have been successfully repulsed. With the view of finally suppressing the rising it has been decided to strengthen the local forces by the dispatch of an Indian regiment, and it is hoped that tranquillity will shortly be restored.

  TRYHILL ESTATE, COUNTY GALWAY.
  MR. M. MCCARTAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Galway, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether his attention has been called to the award made against the Tryhill Estate, county Galway, in connection with the cost of the Suck Drainage; whether he is aware that the total amount of rent of the land drained on 24 holdings amounts to £54 14s. 9d., and that the proposed annual addition for drainage is £51 8s. 2d.; and, whether, considering that this addition would be almost double the annual rent at present payable, and having in view the very low prices obtainable for produce, he will consider what can be done in relief of these tenants?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The Board of Works understand that this question refers to the estate of the late Bishop Gillooly, in the townlands of Tryhill East and Tryhill West. They have no knowledge of the rent. The circumstances are as follows:—In the draft award a charge of £30 17s. 10d. was assessed on the occupiers, and £23 (in addition to £8 16s. 6d. for maintenance) on the proprietor; but at the inquiry it was discovered that the tenants held under 99 years leases, and therefore, for the purposes of the Drainage Acts, are proprietors as well as occupiers, and are liable for the payment both of the occupiers' annuity, representing the actual benefit, and the proprietors' annuity, representing non-productive outlay. The result is that in the final award they are liable for £25 18s. 2d. as occupiers; £27 8s. 4d. as proprietors; and £8 11s. 11d. for maintenance. Total, £61 18s. 5d.; not £51 8s. 2d. The award was made under the provisions of the River Suck Drainage Act, 1889, and there is no power to make any reduction.

  POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS (IRELAND).
  MR. S. YOUNG: In the absence of the hon. Member for the Connemara Division of Galway, Mr. W. O'MALLEY, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Post Office authorities will establish a delivery of letters to Carna, Connemara, County Galway, on Sundays?
  MR. HANBURY: The establishment of Sunday posts in the rural districts depends upon the fulfilment of two conditions: First, that there is revenue sufficient to justify the cost of the additional day's service; and, secondly, that the Sunday service is desired by persons receiving not less than two-thirds of the correspondence for the district affected. Inquiry shall be made whether the amount of correspondence for Carna is sufficient to fulfil the first of these conditions. If it should prove sufficient, a communication shall be made to the hon. Member, so that the views of the inhabitants on the second pact may be ascertained.
  MR. S. YOUNG: In the absence of Mr. W. O'MALLEY, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Post Office authorities will extend telegraphic communication from Spiddle, County Galway, to Carna, Connemara, county Galway, in view of the fact that a steamer calls there once a week from Galway, and that serious inconvenience frequently arises when through any cause the steamer fails to come on the appointed day, and when such inconvenience would be obviated if telegraphic communication existed?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General will be glad to have inquiry made, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member in due course.
  MR. S. YOUNG: in the absence of Mr. W. O'MALLEY, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Post Office authorities will establish a post office at Moyrus, Connemara, County Galway, the Postmaster General having already sanctioned a delivery of letters three times a week to that village, but in the absence of an office where letters could be left till called for, such deliveries are of little practical value?
  MR. HANBURY: The establishment of a post to Moyrus three days a week was attended with as large an additional outlay as the limited amount of correspondence warranted, and there are no grounds on which the Postmaster General could sanction further outlay with a view to establishing a post office there also.
  MR. F. A. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if his attention has been drawn to the complaints by the citizens of Limerick, and expressed in the Cork Herald of 24th December last, to the inadequate postal arrangements in Limerick last Christmas; whether he is aware that on 23rd December last there was no delivery by the 7.10 evening mail, and same occurred on 24th December, and that on Christmas Day in Limerick there was no morning or noon delivery of letters; whether the postmen during those days worked 18 or 20 hours' continuous labour, the sorters being sent away to save expense; and, whether, by the employment of additional hands in future, and payment of overtime, provision will be made to prevent any future congestion and disarrangement at critical occasions in the Limerick postal exigencies?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General will have inquiry made into these allegations and communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND).
  MR. PATRICK M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he proposes to apply to Parliament for money for the extension of Light Railways in Ireland; and (2) can he say at what period of the present Session he will move in the matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. As to the second part of the Question, I should hardly think it possible to do anything in the matter before Easter.
  MR. THOMAS B. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) if he received, some time ago, a Resolution passed at a public meeting in Carndonagh calling for an

  1371
  extension of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway from Buncrana to Carndonagh viâ Clonmany; and is he aware that Resolutions have been passed unanimously by the Innishowen Board of Guardians to a like effect; (2) is he aware that the First Lord of the Treasury, when Irish Secretary, had intended to construct this line, and was only prevented because of the failure of the money voted by Parliament for the making of light railways in Ireland; and if it has been represented to him that one of the chief industries of Innishowen, that of making shirts, will be jeopardised by reason of competition elsewhere in the county where light railways have been constructed, owing to there being no rapid mode of transit at present throughout this large and populous district with Londonderry; (3) if the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company have proposed to fully equip the line, and work it when made free of expense to the Government or the people; and (4) whether the matter has been considered by the Treasury, and what action they intend taking?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. On the general question, namely, the construction of a line of railway between the points mentioned, I can only state at present that it is my intention to apply to Parliament for funds to provide the extension of light railways in Ireland, and that the case of the line proposed in the Question is being considered with that of others.

  NEWSPAPER REGISTRATION.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has observed that, under the regulations requiring a periodical, in order to pass at the reduced halfpenny rate, to appear at intervals not exceeding seven days, and to contain a given proportion of news and articles relating thereto, many of the reviews, magazines, and other valuable monthly publications, and many periodicals containing numerous advertisements, are excluded from the benefit of that rate; whether he is aware that a large number of letters, postal orders, and parcels are dispatched in answer to advertisements,
  1372
  to the profit of the Department; and that many periodicals are filled out with "padding," in the shape of news and articles, in order to establish a claim to the benefits of registration as a newspaper; and whether he will introduce or support a Bill permitting all bona fide periodicals under a fixed weight to pass at the halfpenny rate?
  MR. HANBURY: Publications must be published at intervals of not more than seven days, and must consist wholly or in great part of news or of articles relating thereto, in order to be admitted to the benefit of the newspaper rate. The Postmaster General is not aware to what extent advertisements result in increased business to the Department; nor can he give an opinion as to how much of what passes as news is mere "padding," with a view to satisfying the requirements of the Act. The loss already incurred in the transmission of newspapers is so considerable that the Postmaster General would hesitate to increase it by sanctioning any extension of the privilege.

  CARRICKMACROSS WORKHOUSE.
  MR. J. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is aware that the Carrickmacross Board of Guardians passed a Resolution requesting the Local Government Board for Ireland to sanction a reduction in the cost of stimulants from 15s. 7d. per inmate to 3s. 10d. in Carrickmacross Workhouse, which was refused by the Local Government Board for Ireland; and, whether 3s. 10d. per inmate is seven times more than is expended in either Clones or Monaghan Workhouses on stimulants?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A Resolution substantially to the effect stated was passed by the Carrickmacross Guardians in December, 1894. Their medical officer, however, pointed out that he prescribed stimulants only in cases where he honestly and conscientiously believed them to be the best treatment for the cure of disease, the prolongation of life, and the alleviation of suffering; and while he was prepared to carry out the order of the Guardians, the responsibility of his doing so must rest entirely with them. In consideration of this expression of the medical officer's view, the Local Government Board thought it

  1373
  prudent to remind the Guardians that under the Workhouse Rules the medical officer has discretionary power to order such stimulants for the sick poor under his care as he may consider necessary, and that the Guardians should not interfere with his discretion in the matter by a Resolution of the nature adopted by them, which proposed a hard-and-fast reduction without due consideration of the requirements of each particular case. The cost of stimulants per head of the inmates in the Clones and Monaghan Workhouses in 1893 was about 1d. and 6d. respectively.

  PARISH COUNCIL LOANS.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, if it is intended that there shall be a double Inquiry on each application for a loan to a Parish Council under Section 12 of The Local Government Act, 1894, or whether the Local Government Board will, in the case of applications for small amounts and possessing no special features, give their consent to any loan sanctioned after inquiry by the County Council?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): It appears to me, at present, that there must be an Inquiry by an inspector of the Local Government Board before the Board sanction the raising of a loan by a Parish Council, but there will be no objection to the attendance at the Inquiry of a representative of the County Council, where this is desired by the Council. I quite agree that it is certainly undesirable that there should be a double Inquiry.

  LUNACY (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, if he is aware that in the nine years, 1885–1893, the number of lunatics in England and Wales increased by 26 per cent.; what has been the increase in the last two years; whether there has been a similar increase in Scotland and Ireland; to what causes this rapid increase is due; and, if this is not known,
  1374
  if he will consider the desirability of having some inquiry into such a serious state of facts?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): The increase in the number of lunatics in England and Wales, during the years 1885–93, was 15·5 per cent. and not 26 per cent., as stated by the hon. Member. The increase in Ireland, during the same period, was 21·8 per cent. The increase in England and Wales, during 1893 and 1894, was 2·5 and 2·3 per cent.; in Ireland, during 1894 and 1895 together, it was 5·7 per cent. I am not in possession of the figures for Scotland. The question of the causes to which this increase is due has, as the hon. Member will see on referring to the reports which were presented to Parliament last year, engaged the attention of the Lunacy Boards of all three countries. In regard to Ireland, a special inquiry into the subject was made in 1894, the Report of which was presented to Parliament in the same year. I will consult with the Lord Chancellor with a view to the attention of the Lunacy Commissioners being more closely directed to the question.
  MR. T. LOUGHasked if it was not a fact that the Lunacy Commissioners attributed the increase in lunacy to the severe agricultural depression which had existed?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid, he was not aware that that was so, and he did not think it so appeared in their report.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENasked whether the Commissioners attributed the increase in Ireland partly to the excessive use of tea, and that, though that was the case, they went on supplying tea in all the asylums?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid, he believed it was true that the Lunacy Commissioners in Ireland had mentioned the cause to which the hon. Gentleman had referred as one of the reasons for the increase.

  ASHANTI EXPEDITION.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, what was the number and what the aggregate tonnage

  1375
  of vessels employed in transporting the Military expedition to Ashanti, and what was the total strength of all arms and all ranks of the Military force carried by that number of ships and that aggregate tonnage?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The portion of the Ashanti Expedition which did not go by the ordinary weekly packets consisted of 788 officers and men, who were conveyed in two transports of an aggregate capacity of 8,862 tons gross and 5,511 tons net. In addition to the officers and men, the two transports conveyed a large quantity of stores, including ammunition, clothing, and provisions.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  MR. M. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether his attention has been called to the last Evictions (Ireland) Return, by which it appears that, of the 1,529 tenants who, during the quarter ending 30th June, 1895, have been at suit of the landlord converted into caretakers, 617 are in Ulster; (2) whether he can state the numbers for each of the four provinces of Ireland respectively for the quarters ending 30th September and 31st December last; and (3) whether this matter will be dealt with?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The figures are correctly quoted in the first paragraph from the Return for the June quarter. The Returns containing similar information for each of the four provinces for the September and December quarters were presented to Parliament on the 17th inst.
  MR. MCCARTANsaid, that since notice had been given of the Question, the Returns he asked for had been circulated. But he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that the services of these notices of eviction disabled the tenants from going into court to have rents fixed, and that these were the class of tenants who most required it?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, that is so.

  SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the action of Mr. Plowden, a Metropolitan police magistrate, on the 6th January last, at the Marylebone Police Court, when, on the hearing of a summons against a parent for cruelty to his child, taken out by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, he severely censured the Society's officer for inquiring as to what religious persuasion the child belonged, in accordance with the Act 57 & 58 Vic. c. 41, s. 48, under which the proceedings were taken; and, whether steps can be taken to prevent the magistrate from publicly rebuking the Society's officers for obeying the law?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The hon. Member appears to me to be misinformed as to the provisions of the Act to which he refers. The duty of ascertaining the religious persuasion of a child is imposed, by Section 8, the only section of the Act which contains any provision on the subject, on the court before which the child may be brought, and that only when it has determined to commit it to the custody of some person other than the parent, under Section 6. In the present case, I am informed, the officer of the Society had, before legal proceedings were commenced, called at the house of the mother, and, without disclosing the object of his visit, put various questions to her, including one as to the child's religion. The magistrate considered that this course was not justified by the Act, and expressed himself strongly as to the officer's conduct. I am not prepared to dissent from the view which he takes of the law or to criticise his action in the present case.

  PARISH COUNCIL ELECTIONS.
  MR. W. H. MYERS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is aware that, out of the four alternative days fixed for the poll for the parish council elections, three fall within Passion Week; and whether he will instead allow the poll to be taken on any day during the week ending Saturday 28th March?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The regulations provide that, if there is a poll for the election of parish councillors, it shall be taken on Monday, March 30, unless the County Council fix the previous Saturday, 28th, or the Tuesday, 31st, or Wednesday, April 1, following. The County Council can fix Saturday, March 28th, for the day of election if they deem it necessary on the ground of the three other days mentioned falling in Passion Week. I could not make the alteration suggested now.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the chairman of a parish meeting would be liable to a fine if he were to convene the meeting for the election of the parish council for Thursday the 26th of March; and, whether the election would be held to be invalid by reason of the fact that it did not take place on the 9th of March?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The regulations which have been issued by the Local Government Board will not admit of the elections of parish councillors being deferred until Thursday, 26th March, as suggested by the hon. Member, and there would be no legal authority for holding the election on that day. It is clearly the duty of the chairman of the parish meeting to convene the meeting for the day prescribed—viz., 9th March, and the provisions as to the penalty apply where the meeting is not convened as required by the regulations.

  POCKET BOOKS (POSTAGE).
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that in the autumn of last year the Post Office authorities informed Messrs. Charles Letts and Co. that a pocket book, with a pencil attached by means of a sheath or loop running outside down the back, could be sent by pattern post in response to an order; whether large numbers of such pocket-books were so sent, but that the officials stopped and surcharged several of these books because the covers had been inadvertently marked "B post" (for book post); whether, for many years, publishers of pocket-books had been allowed
  1378
  to send tuck diaries, containing a pencil in the bend of the tuck, by book post; and whether, having regard to the wording of the pattern post and book post regulations respectively, and the fact that the pencil is in many cases specially prepared for writing on the paper of the book, he will in future allow such a book, fitted with pencil, to be transmitted by book post?
  MR. HANBURY: Messrs. Letts and Co. were no doubt informed that a pocket-book with a pencil attached could be sent by pattern post, but strictly as a pattern and not in fulfilment of an order. If any of the packets were marked "Book post" the inference would be that they were not sent as samples, and they would then be correctly surcharged. Pencils or other writing materials, even when attached to a book, do not come within the definition of a book-packet, but packets of the kind may have escaped the notice of the taxing officers. The Postmaster General cannot see his way to allow pencils or other writing materials to pass by book post.

  LETTER CARRIERS' BICYCLES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that two letter carriers, who had been using their own bicycles for the delivery of letters in a country district, with the result of a great saving of time and fatigue, have recently been ordered by the local surveyor to perform their rounds on foot, although the roads are in excellent order; whether one of these letter carriers had purchased a new machine for use in his rounds; and whether he will instruct the surveyors and other officials of the Department to encourage the use of bicycles by letter and telegram carriers as much as possible, in accordance with the declared wishes of the Postmaster General?
  MR. HANBURY: The case to which the hon. Member is believed to refer is not, as he seems to think, a recent one. It is, on the contrary, two years since the postmen in question applied for permission to use their own bicycles, but their request was not granted from a fear that regularity could not be maintained. Last year, however, general instructions were

  1379
  issued on the subject, in accordance with which the two postmen have now been allowed as an experiment to use their bicycles.

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will explain the cause of the delay in completing the sale to the tenants on the estate of Colonel Boreaden, near Ballymahon, in county Longford, of their farms, agreements to purchase which they signed two years ago; and, will he call the attention of the Land Commission to the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I understand that this case is practically in the same state as when my predecessor replied to a similar question addressed to him on the 17th June last. The Land Commission inform me that it rests in the first place with the Solicitors acting for the parties and with the Solicitor having carriage of the proceedings in the Land Judges Court, to meet the difficulties which have already been pointed out to them. I am looking further into the matter, however, in order to see whether anything can be done to expedite the proceedings.

  TROOPS AT LIMERICK.
  MR. F. A. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, if, in accordance with the expressed desire of certain inhabitants of the district, he will direct that the troops stationed in the Artillery Barracks, Mulgrave Street, Limerick, will resume attending Divine Service at St. Munchin's Parish Church, Limerick, as customary heretofore?
  MR. BRODRICK: The General Officer commanding the District has telegraphed as follows:—
  "Officer commanding reports that he cannot trace that troops ever attended St. Munchin's Church, Limerick; and that it is very small, and would be most inconvenient for the Artillery."

  IRISH MAILS.
  MR. F. A. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if his attention has been drawn to the frequent recurrence of the English morning mail arriving late in the city of Limerick, owing to the non-arrival in time at the Limerick Junction of the Great Southern and Western Railway service from Dublin, which company is subsidised by the Government for the carriage of the mails to the south of Ireland; whether he is aware that such delay occurred last Thursday; and, if any steps will be taken to prevent repetition of such delays?
  MR. HANBURY: The late arrivals of the day mail at Limerick during the past winter have not escaped the notice of the Postmaster General. They arise chiefly from the inability of the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company to keep back the Limerick train at Limerick Junction when the Mail from England is, from storm or other cause, late in arriving. The Post Office has been in correspondence with the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company upon the subject, but, owing to the connections to be maintained and to the fact that a large part of the line is single, there is much difficulty in arranging for a detention of the Limerick Mail train at the Junction on the occasions in question.
  MR. O'KEEFFEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether the right hon. Gentleman had received a memorial from the Limerick Chamber of Commerce regarding the subsidising of a special train from Limerick Junction to the city.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, he did not know whether such a memorial had been received, but if it had it would have been considered.

  MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH (COUNTIES).
  MR. E. STRACHEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state what County Councils in England and Wales have appointed a County Medical Officer of Health, together with their salaries and other remuneration, and the terms of their appointment?
  MR. CHAPLIN: According to the latest returns received by the Local Government Board there appear to be

  1381
  about 16 counties for which the County Councils have appointed Medical Officers of Health. I shall be prepared to assent to a return giving the particulars referred to if the hon. Member moves for it.

  BOYLE LIGHTING (COUNTY ROSCOMMON).
  MR. PATRICK A. M'HUGH: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Leitrim, Mr. JASPER TULLY, I beg to ask the Secretary of the Treasury whether he can state, in view of the fact that there is no public lighting system in the town of Boyle, county Roscommon, that the Board of Works will be prepared to grant a loan to the Boyle municipal body, on the security of the rates, for the purpose of providing an electric system in the township.
  MR. HANBURY: A loan such as that referred to would come under the Public Health Act, and the Board of Works are not empowered to grant a loan under that Act except on the recommendation of the Local Government Board and with the consent of the Treasury, given only after such recommendation.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. PATRICK A. M'HUGH: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Galway, Mr. D. KILBRIDE, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether his attention has been called to the name of T. S. Porter, on page 24 in the last Return drawn up in pursuance of the Superannuation Act, 1887; (2) whether he is aware that Mr. Porter was formerly a sub-lieutenant, entitled to retire on half -pay amounting to £45 12s. 6d. annually, and was in 1888 appointed an Assistant Commissioner under Land Commission at £800 a year; (3) if he will state what are the duties of his office; whether he has served on any of the sub-Commissions; and (4) what were his qualifications when appointed to the office?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have not seen the Return referred to in the first paragraph, though I am aware of the facts stated in the second paragraph. Mr. Porter is at present Superintendent of the Agricultural Department of the
  1382
  Land Commission, and performs duties of considerable importance in connection with the Congested Districts Board for Ireland, whose schemes for the improvement of agriculture in congested districts are undertaken by the Agricultural Department of the Land Commission. That Department also administers the Markets and Fairs Acts and collects and compiles returns of the prices of Agricultural produce. Mr. Porter was employed on the work of a sub-Commission between the years 1887 and 1892, and also acted as Valuer for the Land Commission Court of Appeal. Some of this gentleman's qualifications will be found in the Return presented to this House in 1891—No. 177 of that year.

  PROBATE DUTIES GRANT (IRELAND).
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: In the absence of the hon. Member for South Wexford, Mr. P. FFRENCH, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the sum of £2,419 11s. 7d., due to the County Wexford Road Authorities for the year ending 31st March, 1894, out of the Probate Duties Grant, has been paid; and, if not, will he recommend its immediate payment, as the cess in Wexford for 1890 is unusually high?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that payment of the sum mentioned in the Question was ordered in November, 1894, and that it appears from the official records that the County Authorities have cashed all the orders sent to them.

  TECHNICAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  MR. J. O'CONNOR (in the absence of Mr. FFRENCH): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that large sums of money have been granted for technical education in England, the Government propose to spend any money during the present year on technical education in Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer this Question. If the Question is to be understood to refer to the spending of public money on technical education

  1383
  in Ireland in other ways and on other subjects than at present, legislation would be necessary for the purpose, and, except as regards agriculture, the Government do not at present contemplate dealing with the subject this Session.

  JUDICIAL RENTS (IRELAND).
  MR. M. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that at the last Land Sessions held before County Court Judge Roche, Q.C., at Downpatrick, where a tenant applied to have the judicial rent fixed for the second judicial term, it was contended by counsel for the landlord that, as the Land Law (Ireland) Act of 1887 made the fair rent run from the gale day next after the making of the application, and not as in the Act of 1881, only from the gale day next after the decision, it was incompatible with the present law to make application to fix fair rent in respect of second term before the last gale day of the fifteenth year; that otherwise the new rent would commence to run before the last year of the first judicial term had expired; and whether the Land Commission have given any instructions to the tenants on this point?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is not known what views counsel for the landlord may have submitted to the Court in the case referred to, but it is understood that, notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1887, Section 8 (7) of the Act still remains in force, and some applications to fix a fair rent in respect of the second term have already been disposed of by the Courts, although the last gale day of the first of the statutory terms fixed under the Act of 1881, have not yet passed. The Land Commission have received no Report on the subject from Judge Roche, and have given no instructions on the point to tenants.
  MR. MCCARTANasked the right hon. Gentleman if that was the opinion of the Chief Commissioner?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, he would make direct application to the Commissioner if the hon. Gentleman desired it, but he did not think there was any doubt about the state of the law.

  MOUNTAIN ROAD (COUNTY DONEGAL).
  MR. THOMAS B. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if his attention has been directed to a Question put to his predecessor in office in April, 1895, by the hon. Member for East Donegal as to the death, from exposure and cold, of Cornelius Rudden, on the mountain pass between Donagh and the Illies, in County Donegal, on the 28th February, 1895, and to the finding of the jury as to the necessity for a road at the place; and, as his predecessor, in reply to the hon. Member for East Donegal, promised to refer the matter to the Congested Districts Board for further inquiry, whether any inquiry was made by that Board; and, if so, what was the nature of such inquiry; and, if any aid will be given in making such a road by the Government?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The suggestion for the making of the road in question has, I am informed, been more than once under the consideration of the Congested Districts Board, but it was decided by them not to make it.

  POST OFFICE PENSIONS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what were the particular circumstances which led to the retirement on a pension of £504 17s. 6d. a year of the late postmaster of Belfast; whether this took place under Treasury Minute of the 15th August, 1890, or upon the grounds of ill-health; is he aware that since the date of his superannuation the late postmaster of Belfast has been appointed assistant secretary and collector to a charitable institution in Belfast at a salary of £100 per year, and with duties more onerous than those incident to his former position; what steps, if any, he means to take in order to stop the competition of State pensioners with other people anxious to obtain employment; and, whether, if Mr. Shepherd was not retired under Treasury Minute of 15th August, 1890, it would be possible to recall him to active duty by appointing to some less onerous position in the service?
  MR. HANBURY: The late postmaster of Belfast retired on the ground of ill health, which was certified by the

  1385
  local Medical Officer to the Post Office, and also, which was not strictly necessary, by another physician. As to his proceedings since his retirement the Department has no knowledge. The Government has no control over State pensioners except indeed that, if their health will permit and they are under 60 years of age, it can recall them to duty; and the terms of the medical certificate made it clearly undesirable in the public interest to retain Mr. Shepherd at the head of a large and busy office who, though not yet 60, will be so early next year.

  CONVICTS ON LICENCE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he has any objection to state how ticket of leave convicts are classed with regard to reporting themselves to the police authorities, and especially with reference to the twenty who are allowed to report by letter, giving the circumstances and conditions under which the privilege is allowed?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The manner in which a convict at large on licence in the Metropolitan Police District is required to report himself to the police does not depend upon any mode of classification. If a licence-holder applies for permission to report by letter, his application is considered on its merits and always with a desire to accede to it if possible. The points especially taken into consideration are the nature of his crime, the nature of his employment, and the position and character of the people he is living with.

  TYLORSTOWN EXPLOSION.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the verdict of the coroner's jury in the case of the Tylorstown explosion, in which the jury expressed their surprise that Her Majesty's inspectors had not made a thorough and systematic inspection of No. 8 Pit during the past 15 months, and recommended that practical working men be appointed as assistant inspectors of mines; whether he will take steps to ascertain from his predecessor the nature of the undertaking given by him last
  1386
  year to appoint such inspectors; and, how far he proposes to meet the recommendation of the coroner's jury?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: My attention has been called to the verdict of the jury as reported in the newspapers. Full reports will be received in due course from the inspector for the district and the counsel who has represented the Home Office at the inquest, and, with the verdict of the jury, will be most carefully considered by me. With regard to the appointment of working-men inspectors, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member a week ago. In that answer I quoted the undertaking in the matter which my predecessor gave. It appears to me to be sufficiently clear.
  MR. C. FENWICK: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to issue to Members of this House the evidence that was taken at the Inquiry?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Certainly, Sir. The Report will be issued in due course in the usual way.

  CHARGE AGAINST PUBLICAN (IRELAND).
  MR. T. J. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who was responsible for having the charge against James Pelan, of Gorey, of being drunk and disorderly on his own licensed premises, amended into a charge of drunkenness; who was responsible for having this case heard in camera, and who supplied the original information that the case was heard in open Court, which was afterwards admitted to be untrue; whether he is aware of any other cases under the Licensing Acts being ever heard in camera, and where they were heard; why a distinction was made between Pelan's case and the cases of three other publicans which were tried in open Court on the same day; and, whether he will direct an independent Inquiry as to who supplied the erroneous information supplied to him?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have called for further and full reports in reference to the matters referred to, but as they have not yet reached me, I must ask the hon. Member to repeat the question on Monday next.

  PARISH COUNCIL ELECTIONS.
  MR. H. C. LUTTRELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Harborough Division of Leicester, Mr. J. W. LOGAN, I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether, having regard to the fact that in rural districts many changes of tenancy take place on the 25th March, and that the date of a parish meeting for the election of Parish Councillors has been fixed for the 9th of March, and the polling, if any, for the 30th of March, a person who may have come to reside in a parish on the 25th of March, 1895, will be eligible for election, seeing that he will have resided in the parish the statutory period before any polling can take place?
  MR. LUTTRELLfurther asked the President of the Local Government Board, is a person who came to reside in a parish on 25th March, 1895, eligible for election as a Parish Councillor by show of hands on 9th March, 1896, the day fixed for the parish meeting for election of Parish Councillors by the Local Government Board?
  MR. CHAPLIN: It will be convenient that I should answer this question and that of the hon. Member for the Tavistock Division at the same time. I have no authority whatever to determine questions as to the qualification or disqualification of candidates for election as Parish Councillors; but, so far as I can form an opinion on the question, I should doubt whether a person could be nominated at the meeting for the election of Councillors on the ground of qualification by residence unless he has during the whole of the 12 months preceding the day of the meeting resided within the parish or within three miles thereof.
  MR. LUTTRELL: I should like to ask, whether the effect of this Order for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible will not be to disqualify a large number of men who would otherwise be capable of standing as Councillors, seeing that, in the rural districts, a large number of houses change hands on Lady Day?
  MR. CHAPLIN: That will depend upon what is ruled to be the correct interpretation of the law.
  MR. LUTTRELL: Will not the effect of this Order, if it is carried out, be the means of disqualifying a large number
  1388
  of people who, according to the spirit of the Local Government Act of 1894, should be capable of being elected?
  Mr. CHAPLIN: Again, Sir, I have to say that that must depend upon the interpretation of the law.
  MR. LUTTRELLsaid, it was within the power of the President of the Local Government Board to alter the Order if he thought it advisable; and he would ask him if he would do so in this instance, so as to prevent the disqualification of persons otherwise eligible for the office of Parish Councillors?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is going beyond the limits of the Question on the paper.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I would just observe that, whatever might have been the case some time ago, it would be quite impossible to alter the date now, for the reason that the notices have all been given.
  MR. LUTTRELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he is in his present position next year, whether he will have an Order issued to prevent these people being disqualified?

  VACCINATION.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state when the Report of the Royal Commission on Vaccination (appointed in May 1889) will be presented to Her Majesty?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I am informed that the final Report of the Commission is now under their consideration, but I am not in a position to say more than that I hope to be able to present it to Her Majesty shortly.
  MR. JOHNSTONE: Has anything been done to accelerate the Report:
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I believe the President of the Local Government Board has communicated with the Chairman of the Commission, and has informed him there is a great desire that this Report should be presented.

  TWEED AND SOLWAY FISHERY COMMISSION.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate what progress the Tweed and Solway

  1389
  Fishery Commission has made with its labours; and when its Report is expected?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I understand that the Tweed Report is practically complete, and that the Solway Report is expected to be ready shortly.
  MR. SHAWinquired whether it would be possible to issue an interim report so far as concerned these particulars?
  MR. RITCHIE: Usually when a Commission desire to have an interim Report they make one. They do not do so when they do not require one.

  PREVENTION OF CRIMES ACT.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers under the Prevention of Crimes Acts the Chief Commissioner of Metropolitan Police conferred upon Inspector Drywood by his delegation, dated 13th November, 1891; and, under what statutory authority was this delegation made?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The delegation confers the power of: (1) receiving from licensees and persons under police supervision their monthly reports and notifications of place of residence, change of residence and intention to leave the district; (2) serving them with notices prescribing the time and place at which such reports and notifications are to be made. The delegation was dated 30th, not 13th, November, and was made under Section 20 of the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871.

  CLERK OF THE PEACE (SUTHERLAND).
  MR. J. M'LEOD: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the statutory meeting of the Quarter Sessions for the county of Sutherland will be held on Tuesday next, 3rd March; and, whether any appointment has been made to the office of Clerk of the Peace, vacant through the death of the late Sheriff Clerk for the county; and, if not, whether any business can be legally transacted in the absence of a clerk?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir CHARLES PEARSON,): It is hoped that the permanent appointment will be made in a short time. I am by no means sure that the legal objection referred to in the Question is a sound one; but I will do my best to obviate it before the meeting.

  INDIAN MINTS.
  SIR WILLIAM CODDINGTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the tenour of the communications which have passed between Her Majesty's Government and that of Germany with reference to the re-opening of the Indian mints; and whether any change has taken place in the views of Her Majesty's Government since the date of those communications?
  MR. CURZON: On November 8th Count Hatzfeldt inquired whether Her Majesty's Government were willing to discuss the Bi-metallic question in conference, in the event of the German Government deciding to do so. Lord Salisbury replied that he must consult his colleagues before expressing a definite opinion; but that he did not wish to exclude the idea of a conference if good grounds for holding it were shown. In a subsequent conversation, Count Hatzfeldt inquired whether the Indian Government proposed to re-open their mints, as the German Government considered this a necessary condition of any International arrangement. On December 6th he was informed that the re-opening of the Indian mints was not contemplated either by the Government of India or by Her Majesty's Secretary of State for India in Council. This being the case, the subject was not then pursued further. At a later date Count Count Hatzfeldt showed to Lord Salisbury the statement which the German Chancellor proposed to make in the Reichstag as to what had passed between them. Lord Salisbury made no objection to the statement, but with reference to observations made in the Reichstag he reminded Count Hatzfeldt that his reply had been confined to a statement of the facts as they then were, and had not been intended to imply any intention, one way or the other, for the future.

  1391
  The statement made by the First Lord on February 20th indicates the general views which Her Majesty's Government, after consideration, entertain upon the subject.

  MADAGASCAR.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether there are any real grounds for the prevailing impression that British merchants and traders in and to Madagascar will shortly be subjected to fiscal and other disabilities which will not be laid on French traders in and to that island, or whether British traders may continue their business in the security that will enjoy the same fiscal and commercial conditions as their French competitors?
  MR. CURZON: The new Treaty between France and Madagascar has not yet been communicated to Her Majesty's Government, and they are, therefore, not, as yet, in a position to express an opinion in regard to it.

  SIAM.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he will be able to lay upon the Table of the House the Papers with reference to Siam, and the negotiations prior to the signing of the Anglo-French Convention, as well as a Copy of the Treaty itself?
  MR. CURZON: The Anglo-French Declaration about Siam will be laid next week with a Copy of the Dispatch to Lord Dufferin which has already appeared in the Gazette. As I have before stated it is not proposed to lay Papers relative to the previous negotiation.

  LABOURERS ACT (IRELAND).
  MR. G. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is aware of the cause of the delay on the part of the Board of Works, in forwarding to the Omagh Board of Guardians a sum of £240, sanctioned on 3rd February under the Labourers Act; and that, if the transfer of land is not completed at once, the labourers will not be able to crop the plots this year; and whether he will take steps to have the money advanced without further delay?
  MR. HANBURY: The delay of which the hon. Member complains was due to the need for preparing the requisite mortgages. The drafts were sent to the guardians on the 26th instant, and as soon as the deeds are completed, the first advance of £200 can be made.

  EXCISE PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, was it for one offence, or for several offences, that the wine merchant of Upper Sackville Street, Dublin, has been fined the sum of £300; if for more than one offence, how many; and what is the legal fine attached to each of the several offences?
  MR. MCCARTAN: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, may I ask him if this is the case of Mr. Adam Scott, and why there should be any hesitation, if a fraud has been committed on the public, in giving the name of the person and thus removing suspicion from innocent persons?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): I should have no hesitation in giving the name if I knew it, but it has not been communicated to me.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I shall put a Question on the Paper on the subject?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: With regard to the Question on the Paper I may say that the Inland Revenue authorities had reason to believe that the offence was committed on more than one occasion, but as the matter was not brought into Court it is not possible to speak of the fine as if it corresponded to a definite number of proved offences. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by the Court on conviction is £200 for each day on which the offence is proved to be committed. That may be reduced to £50, and I believe it would be generally reduced by the Court.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: May I ask what form of trial took place in this case. Was the case heard in private or was it brought into Court?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The fine of £300 was a compromise. It was inflicted by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under the discretionary powers vested in them by Statute.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Have they the power to condone a crime of this kind?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir; it cannot be described as a power of condonation. It is a discretionary power vested in them by Statute, and they were advised by the solicitor that it was better to deal with the case in that way owing to the difficulty of obtaining convictions in those cases.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any explanation why the name of the offender was kept back?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question on the Paper has been fully answered.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is a fact that the Admiralty, in issuing orders for contracts for their Department, have altered the form of order by leaving out of the terms of the Resolution of the House of Commons of February, 1891 (known as the Fair Wages Resolution), the words "current in the district;" whether he is aware that the proposed alteration destroys the full force of the Resolution; whether he has considered the effect of such alteration on the wages of the workmen of firms tendering for contracts; and whether the Government's proposal is final on this subject?
  COLONEL DENNYasked whether it was not the fact that the wages paid by firms who were generally asked to tender for Admiralty work are settled by mutual consent between the employers and the employés, usually through their respective associations; and, as the wages are fixed for a period, of the determination of which notice must be given, what the probable effect upon wages expended on Admiralty work could be?
  MR. R. ASCROFTasked whether the alteration had been made in consequence of representations which had been sent in to the Admiralty; and, if so, whether there was any objection to a copy of the correspondence being supplied to Members of the House?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): With reference to the question of my hon. Friend below the Gangway (Colonel Denny), I should certainly have thought that the workmen in the employment of great firms would have been able to make satisfactory arrangements with their employers without the intervention of Parliament. In regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Oldham, I am not sure that I could give the correspondence. Certain representations have been made that the words "current in the district" hampered London industry; but I will enter into the matter further. In reply to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that the suggestion in the first paragraph is the very reverse of the fact. I have already stated in the House, in reply to another hon. Member that, in issuing orders for contracts, the Admiralty observe the precise words of the Resolution of the House of Commons. After some words of preamble, the Resolution ran as follows:—
  "To make every effort to secure the payment of such wages as are generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen."
  The words in our contracts are:—
  "The wages paid in execution of such contracts shall be those generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen."
  It is, therefore, an entire misapprehension to say that we have departed from the decision of the House of Commons. The words current, "in the district where the work is carried out," were departmentally added, and have now been departmentally omitted; but it cannot be too widely known that the words "generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen" remain unchanged. I am not aware that the proposed alteration destroys the full force of the Resolution. The words "competent workmen" and "current in each trade" contained in the Resolution remain as the House intended them to remain. I have considered the effect of such alteration on the wages of workmen of firms tendering for contracts. I desire to place all parts of the country on an equal footing, with a fair field and no favour, so that workmen in all

  1395
  centres of shipbuilding industry might share in Government work. It appears that discussions touching this subject will take place both on the 17th and 24th of next month, when I shall be glad to state my views on this question. As regards the effect in London, I have asked weeks ago to be supplied with information bearing on this question, but it has not been supplied to me.

  PREVENTION OF CRIMES ACTS.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what is the total number in the Metropolitan Police District of persons subject to the supervision of police under the Prevention of Crimes Acts (excluding convicts at large on licence); how many (if any) are exempt from the obligation to report themselves every month; how many are permitted to report themselves by letter; how many are required to make their monthly report personally; and, of the last-named class, how many (if any) are required to report themselves elsewhere than at a police station?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The figures which the hon. Member asks for are, in the order in which he asks for them, as follow:—111; none; three; 108; none.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESinquired when the First Lord of the Treasury proposed to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to ascertain and report upon the construction and meaning of the new Sessional Order passed on Thursday night.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYreplied that he had given no promise as to the appointment of a Committee, and had only pointed out that that was one of the methods which might be adopted. It would be in the recollection of the House that he gave a pledge that, before the Government acted on the interpretation which he and the Government gave to the Resolution, the House of Commons should be asked to give its assent, and to that pledge he, of course, adhered.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked what was the programme of Government business next week.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, the first business on Monday would be the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty, with the Speaker in the Chair, on the general subject of the Navy Estimates. After that statement the adjournment of the Debate would be moved, and the Naval Works Bill would be introduced. Thereafter they would go on with the Supplementary Estimates. On Friday, of course, the Estimates would be put down, and he imagined on Thursday also, though that would depend partly on the progress made.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, if the matters in the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty were of a novel and extensive character, it would be desirable that Members especially conversant with Naval affairs should have an opportunity of considering it, and they would desire that the Navy Estimates should not be taken at all next week.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsuggested that, before asking for a final answer, the right hon. Gentleman should wait until he heard the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty. He would remind him and the House that in any case it would not be the Naval Estimates that would be discussed on Monday, but Motions on the question that the Speaker leave the Chair.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked when the Irish Estimates would be taken.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYreplied that he could not say, but full notice would be given beforehand.
  MR. WEIRasked if that answer also applied to the Scotch Votes. [Laughter.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsignified assent.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Thomas Courtenay Theydon Warner, esquire, for the County of Stafford (Lichfield Division).
  SOLICITORS' MAGISTRACY.
  Bill to enable Solicitors of the High Court to act as County Justices, ordered to be brought in by Sir Robert Reid; presented and read 1a; to be read 2a upon Friday next.—[Bill 115.]
  PUBLIC HOUSES' HOURS OF CLOSING (SCOTLAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Public Houses' Hours of Closing (Scotland) Act, 1887, ordered to be brought in by Sir George Trevelyan, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Sir William Dunn, Mr. Munro Ferguson, Mr. John Wilson (Govan), and Mr. Edmund Robertson; presented and read 1a; to be read 2a upon Tuesday, 24th March.—[Bill 116.]
  SCHOOL BOARD ELECTORATE (SCOTLAND).
  Bill to admit to the School Board Electorate in the counties of Argyll, Caithness, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, and Orkney and Shetland, all persons entitled to vote for the County Council Election for the said counties, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Weir, Mr. E. B. Baillie, Dr. Clark, Sir Leonard Lyell, Mr. M'Leod, and Mr. Nicol; presented and read 1a; to be read 2a upon Wednesday, 11th March.—[Bill 117.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES), 1895–6.

  CLASS I.
  £3,400, Supplementary, Royal Palaces—agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed:—
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £92,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1896, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Elites, &c., in respect of Government property"——
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid, he was bound to admit that latterly much progress had been made towards the Government paying their proper contributions in lieu of rates, at any rate in the metropolis. Of the Returns he moved for last Session, only one—the
  1398
  London Return—had been presented; and he should like to know when the Provincial Return would be circulated. With regard to London considerable improvement had been made. In his own parish, Islington, the contributions had been nearly trebled—the increase being from £4,300 to £11,000. In Clerkenwell a similar improvement had taken place; and it was contemplated that all the Royal palaces which were not actually Royal residences—for instance the Houses of Parliament—should in future pay as public buildings. There was one marked improvement in this year's Estimates, and it was explained in this note upon the Supplementary Estimates:—
  "Hitherto, in England and Wales, the rule has been to defer payment until after the close of the half-year in which the Rates, which form the subject of the Contributions, are made. It is in order to obviate this delay that Parliament is asked to provide the additional sum of £92,000."
  He read this, not for the purpose of criticising it, but of welcoming the reform. Instead of keeping a sum of nearly £100,000 in hand every year for six months, Government property was to be placed on exactly the same footing as other property, and the payments would be in cash. What the Treasury did was to place itself in the position of ordinary ratepayers. He did not think he ought to do otherwise than express his very strong approval of the action of the Secretary of the Treasury, who had remedied an injustice, and, on behalf of the London parishes, he desired to pay a tribute to which he was eminently due. ["Hear, hear!"] But he would like to know when the Provincial Returns would be produced. He begged formally to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,)said, he believed the Provincial Returns would be circulated within a few days.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  CLASS II.
  £2,800, Supplementary, Home Office—
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,),in reply to Mr. David Thomas

  1399
  (Merthyr Tydvil) said, with regard to the arbitrators, the charge was entirely owing to the inquiries held, in the east and west districts of South Wales, into the colliery accident.
  MR. H. H. ASQUITHapproved of the expenditure. The result was settled rules for the whole district.
  Vote agreed to.
  £2,870, Supplementary, Foreign Office—agreed to.
  £25,000, Supplementary, Stationery and Printing—agreed to.

  CLASS III.
  £2,200, Supplementary, Supreme Court of Judicature—
  MR. T. LOUGHsaid, he thought this Vote required some few words of explanation. It seemed an extraordinary item.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, the difference between the original Estimate and the expenditure no doubt was due to the fact that when it was framed the late Government did not contemplate a General Election last year. [Laughter]. The extra cost was due to the election petitions.
  In reply to MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S. W.),
  MR. HANBURYsaid, that shorthand notes were taken of these election petition trials for the information of the House.
  Vote agreed to.
  £10, Supplementary, County Courts—agreed to.
  £1,500, Supplementary, Register House, Edinburgh—agreed to.

  CLASS IV.
  £150,719, Supplementary, Public Education, England and Wales—agreed to.
  £20,000, Supplementary, Department of Science and Art for the United Kingdom—
  MR. LOUGHasked for some explanation of the Vote.
  MR. W. WOODALLsaid, the Committee would be glad to listen to any explanation the right hon. gentleman might have to offer as regarded the growth of instruction in drawing in elementary schools, and as to what was being done to extend manual instruction.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SIR JOHN GORST,)said, the policy had been carried out which was foreshadowed in the Estimates of last year, but more students had attended the classes, and they had earned higher grants than was anticipated.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITquite understood there had been no change of policy, but the increased Vote asked for indicated a very satisfactory progress in the schools in drawing and manual instruction, and also in a greater average attendance. If the right hon. gentleman could give the Council some more detailed information on the point, it would enable them to realise more thoroughly what he thought was a very satisfactory symptom.
  SIR J. GORSTsaw there was an increase of about 6,000 in the average attendance of children in elementary day schools who earned the drawing grant. There was an increased percentage of schools which obtained the higher scale of reward, and there was consequently an increase in the payment per unit of average attendance, showing that the children who attended the instruction in drawing had benefited more by the instruction than they did in the previous year. There was a greater increase than was anticipated in the number of schools earning grants for manual instruction. It was estimated that 1,009 would earn grants, and that the average grant per school would be £14 10s; 1,089 actually earned the grant. Besides the increase of grant to the ordinary elementary schools, there was an increase of £4,000 in respect of the training colleges. That was accounted for by the fact that there were two examinations of training colleges which fell into the one year; there were two payments, therefore, where ordinarily one would be made. Under the revised Regulations the students at the second examination were

  1401
  more successful than was anticipated. All this was extremely satisfactory from an educational point of view, and he was sure the small sum of £20,000 would be very cheerfully paid.
  Vote agreed to.
  £10,000, Supplementary, Universities and Colleges, Great Britain—
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITasked if there was any intention to propose a Supplementary Vote in respect to King's College.
  THE CHAIRMANdid not think such a question could be raised, as there was no item in the Vote for King's College.
  MR. LOUGHasked if the Vote was the result of the appeal made by a deputation which recently waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  MR. HANBURYsaid, that the question of King's College did not arise upon the Vote. With regard to the grant to the Cardiff University College, he had to say that £20,000 was promised by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to the University College at Cardiff, on condition that it was met by a similar amount of private subscriptions. £10,000 was provided for in this supplementary Estimate, because something more than £10,000 had already been found privately. The remainder of the £20,000 was included in the ordinary Estimates for 1896–7, but similarly would only be paid over if a similar sum was found by private subscriptions.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) had asked whether this grant was in response to a deputation which waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer a short time ago. As the point had been raised, would the Government say whether any decision had been come to as to the University of Wales?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,)said, the Vote had nothing to do with the University of Wales, but it had to do with the building grant towards the Cardiff College. The point raised by the deputation was altogether different.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESunderstood that £20,000 was promised on condition that another
  1402
  £20,000 was raised by private subscription; £10,000 had been obtained from private sources, and the Treasury now proposed to grant £10,000, thus making an entirely new bargain. It was one thing to say, "I will give you £20,000 towards £40,000," and a totally different thing to say, "I will give £10,000 towards £20,000."
  MR. HANBURYsaid, the original bargain was that if £20,000 was raised by private subscriptions the Government would find another £20,000. Although the Government were now proposing to give £10,000, £14,000 had been provided by private subscriptions.
  Vote agreed to.
  £4, Supplementary, London University—agreed to.
  £9,281, Supplementary, Public Education, Ireland—
  MR. HANBURYstated, in reply to Mr. LOUGH (Islington, W.), that the proportions of the Grant between the three kingdoms were:—England, 80; Scotland, 11; and Ireland, 9.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS V.
  £38,366, Supplementary, Diplomatic and Consular Services—
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked for some explanation of the Vote. This large sum, so far as he could ascertain from the note to the Estimates, consisted of tonnage dues levied on British ships, and had not been expended. He wished to know why those dues, levied at Constantinople and Smyrna for the maintenance of hospital accommodation for British seamen at those ports, had been allowed to accumulate, and had not been expended; and why such a large sum was required this year for the creation, or improvement, or increase of hospital accommodation at the places named.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,)said, he was not surprised at the Question put by his hon. Friend, for the

  1403
  Vote was one which required some explanation, considering its large amount compared with last year. The hospitals at Constantinople and Smyrna for British seamen were taken over some years since by the British Government, and from that time the annual cost of their maintenance was met by dues levied on British shipping at the two ports by the Consular authorities there. The money thus derived was devoted to the hospitals, and the balances were carried forward. That system prevailed up to 1870, when a change was introduced. In that year for the first time the dues and the balances were paid into the home Exchequer, and from that time up to 1894 the expenditure on the hospitals appeared annually in the Estimates of the House, and after 1885 had formed a part of the sum taken for the Consular Vote. That system gave rise to much complaint. Mercantile bodies, hon. Members, and other gentlemen connected with shipping, frequently complained of the character and amount of the dues levied, and it accordingly had been decided to revert to the old system of a separate hospital fund, which it was believed would cause less friction. The expenses of the hospitals would, therefore, as originally, be met from the dues levied on our vessels at Constantinople and Smyrna. As to the management of the hospitals, he might inform his hon. Friend that they were administered by separate committees composed of British residents at those two ports. The accounts of the committees were audited every year by the Auditor General and Controller General, and the Committees could not act without the approval of the Secretary of State. His hon. Friend appeared to be surprised at the largeness of the Vote. As he had pointed out, up to 1894 the sum derived from the dues had been paid into the home Exchequer, and in most of those years during which this had been done there had been a balance, which had accumulated in the hands of the Exchequer to a considerable amount—to a sum between £40,000 and £50,000. When the old system was reverted to the home Exchequer was asked to refund that accumulated sum to the hospital management, and it was decided to pay off the amount by instalments. Last year the sum of £6,000 appeared in the Estimates for the purpose, but the Treasury
  1404
  had since come to the conclusion that it would be well to pay off the remaining balance of the accumulation in a lump sum, and that fact accounted for the largely-increased amount in the Estimates. His hon. Friend desired to know why, under the circumstances, the amount of the dues had not been decreased, seeing that there had been this accumulation of balances. He was glad to be able to inform him that there had been a consistent reduction of the dues since 1871. In 1871 they were reduced at Constantinople from 1½d. to 1d. a ton (not to be paid twice by the same vessel in four months); in 1888 they were reduced from 1d. to ½d. a ton, independent of any time limit; and in 1890 they were reduced 1d. for every three tons register per voyage. At Smyrna the dues in 1885 were reduced from 2d. to 1½d. a ton; and in 1888 from 1½d. to 1¼d.; and there was no intention at present to increase them for the purposes of the hospitals. The only point now was to see that, the dues having been reappropriated to one fund (the hospitals' fund), they were made to subserve the necessities of that fund, and that fund alone. They would be kept as low as was compatible with the efficient maintenance of the hospitals, and certainly beyond the proper maintenance of these hospitals which should benefit British shipping and British trade there was no desire whatever to exact taxation from British shipping. He trusted that he had explained to the Committee the circumstances in which this sum appeared on the Votes, and also the principles under which these dues on British shipping were levied for the maintenance of the hospitals.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that on the financial side of the question he was fairly satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. It would be admitted, however, that it was possible for the accounts to tally so far as the audit was concerned, and yet the hospital from the medical, surgical, and sanitary point of view not to be as well managed as it ought to be. What medical, surgical, and sanitary supervision was exercised on behalf of the Government in respect of this particular hospital for which this large sum of money was asked? Did any naval surgeons call there to see our sailors who were suffering from accidents or disease, and

  1405
  whether the establishment was satisfactorily managed on the medical side?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES, in looking at the total amount of dues for last year, pointed out that those dues were greatly in excess of the requirements of the hospital. Practically, more than £38,000 was required in the space of 20 years; so that £2,000 a year had been levied more than was required. He had not ascertained from the right hon. Gentleman, in whose hands would reside in future the power to say what the rates should be, or on whom the obligation would lie to make a reduction of the rates when warranted by the state of the funds.
  MR. CURZONsaid, that the control was primarily in the hands of committees of British residents in those ports, and it was to their interest to see the institutions well and economically managed. He thought that his hon. Friend's criticism as to the excess of dues was not quite fair. From time to time repairs were needed, and the balance fund was required for capital expenditure upon the maintenance of the hospitals. The Secretary of State was primarily responsible for them, and no question could be decided by the committees without reference to the Foreign Office.
  MR. H. LABOUCHERE: Is it not the fact that the greater part of this money has been spent in building a new hospital at Smyrna? That is really how the money went.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he must press his point once more. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that the medical supervision of the hospital at Constantinople was under the charge of a committee of British residents and others; but did he not think that it was compatible with the neglect of the primary object of the hospital—the attendance upon British sailors down with fever or suffering from accident—for the British residents and others to convert the hospital into a convalescent home for the residents at Constantinople at the expense of the men who received serious injuries? Would the right hon. Gentleman promise that the ailments and diseases from which our sailors suffered should be one of the primary objects of this hospital, and that it should not be looked upon as a kind of chapel of-ease for a few British residents?
  SIR EDWARD GREYbelieved it to be perfectly true—he was speaking only from memory—that a few years ago it was determined to build a new hospital, and he hoped that it was finished by this time. The new hospital was very much needed, owing to the unhealthy site of the former building. It was not only necessary to consider the question of the amount of dues, but also the suitableness of the buildings, so that they should be in a thoroughly efficient and satisfactory state.
  Vote agreed to.
  £17,000, Supplementary, for sundry Colonial Services—
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had read a speech by the Colonial Secretary before Parliament met, in which the right hon. Gentleman foreshadowed a grandiose scheme to spend a good deal of British money to improve our properties in divers parts of the world. He noticed that the right hon. Gentleman was already carrying out the idea. For example, in this Vote there was a sum of £15,000 as a grant in aid of Dominica. A foot-note said, "this grant is required to meet outstanding liabilities on the current account of the island, which amount to more than £10,000, and to cover the cost of public works urgently required, to the extent of about £5,000." Like the right hon. Gentleman, he took an interest in these properties, but the difference between them was, that while the right hon. Gentleman thought that it would be better to develop them at the expense of British money, he would like to see them bettered, if possible, at the expense of the money of the Colonies themselves. There were a vast number of things in England on which expenditure would be desirable if they could obtain the money. Really, they must limit themselves to the charity which began mid ended at home. When we had no poor among us here, when we had all the public works that were required here, when we found that there were no persons in need of work in this country, then would be the time to go to Dominica and improve the property there, and pay off the debts of the

  1407
  people. But they had not arrived at that Utopia at home, and until they had he objected to this expenditure. He was no great believer in the West India Islands. So long as slavery existed in the island of Dominica it was wealthy, but since that time it did not appear to be an excellent property. It was about the last place where he should wish to spend British money. No doubt what would happen would be this. Other islands would say: "As you have paid money to better Dominica, the best thing we can do is to incur liability, and you would also pay it off." He moved to reduce the Vote by £15,000.
  MR. THOMAS LOUGHsaid, he found in this Vote that there were two sums asked for. He had no complaint to make about the second sum.
  THE CHAIRMAN: A reduction of the first item has been moved, and therefore a discussion cannot take place on another item.
  MR. LOUGHpointed out that the Estimate was headed "Revised," but there had been no original Estimate. Now the Committee had before them a sum of £15,000, and it was an entirely new Estimate.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Where is the word "Revised."
  MR. LOUGH: At the head of the column, in small type. We get all our information in small type. The Estimate was revised from nothing to £15,000. Why had that been necessary? If the liabilities were outstanding, why could they not be allowed to outstand until the proper Estimates came forward, so that the Committee might be enabled to discuss them with more completeness than at this juncture?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESwished to know why this grant was made specially to Dominica. He had always thought that the island of the West Indian group which most required development was Jamaica. Was it that Dominica had contracted debts, and, like the spendthrift son, come to papa to pay? And what kind of public works were they? Were they works connected with harbours, or roads, or light railways, or what?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I had always thought that the great objects of
  1408
  discussion in Supply were, in the first place, to put questions and to discuss the policy of the Government; and, in the second place, to secure economical administration of funds placed at the disposal of Her Majesty; but the hon. Member opposite has discovered a third object, and, as a jurist and grammarian, he wishes to discuss the manner in which the Estimates are put before the House. There is no doubt this is a new Estimate in the sense of being supplementary, and revised as compared with the original Colonial Estimate, and that, as it was not in the original Vote for Dominica, this may be considered as an entirely new Vote, although, as it comes within the expenditure of the year, it has to be placed on the Supplementary Estimates. The hon. Member for Northampton, in raising the question of policy, referred to a speech of mine delivered after the House rose last year, but that speech was only an extension and explanation of a speech I had previously made in the House, when I said I had convinced myself, after careful inquiry, that there were Colonies of the British Crown— and I referred entirely to Crown Colonies as distinguished from the self-governing Colonies—which were in the nature of undeveloped estates, and upon which expenditure of British money might be made with the greatest advantage both to the Colony and to the Empire. [Cheers.] I am perfectly prepared to say that Dominica is one of those cases. But the question hardly arises on the present Vote. What I contemplated, when I made the speech referred to, was the investment of British capital in those undeveloped Colonies with a view to their development, but I did not intend that that investment should be in the nature of an absolute grant. On the contrary, I anticipated, that it would only be made in cases where there was every probability that the investment would be productive and would be repaid. I did not anticipate that is to say, either immediate or ultimate loss to the taxpayer, because by the proposal I shall not be depriving the inhabitants of the British islands of assistance to which they are entitled; I shall be only asking that an investment of our superabundant capital should be made, and I shall only make the proposal if I think the investment will be

  1409
  profitable. The case of Dominica is altogether an exceptional one It is, I believe, one of the very richest islands in the possession of the Crown in the West Indies in the natural productiveness of the soil; at the same time it is an island in which practically nothing has been done, and to this day the very best Crown land in the island, amounting to about 100,000 acres, is absolutely unproductive because there are no means of communication. Differing in that respect from the French Colonies in the close vicinity of Dominica, we have made no expenditure at all for the development of the resources of the island. What has been the result? As long as slavery prevailed, and sugar plantations were profitable, the island managed to pay its way, but for many years it has been a constant struggle to make revenue and expenditure balance each other, and the struggle has always ended in the expenditure being larger than the revenue. In 1893, the late Sir R. Hamilton was sent out to report on the condition of the island, and he reported as to its natural resources and as to the absolute neglect of those resources up to the present time. He made certain suggestions for raising taxation and for diminishing expenditure, and further submitted that, if anything was to be done which would really set the island upon its legs, it must be by the employment of a considerable sum of money in making communications, without which it was absolutely impossible that the rich lands should be cultivated. Some of the suggestions of Sir R. Hamilton have been carried into effect; but, on the whole he was too sanguine. In the condition of Dominica it was of little use to raise the taxation. We have really almost reached the extreme point to which taxation can be carried under existing circumstances. On the other hand, attempts have been made to diminish the expenditure, and the result has been that expenditure that really ought to have been made on public works has been held over, roads have become useless because bridges have fallen into disrepair, and portions of roads have bee swept away, and the Colony has no money wherewith to repair them. Things have gone form bad to worse, and there existed, in 1895, a deficit of £10,000 as between income and expenditure, which was owing from the island to
  1410
  the Federal Treasury in Antigua. I instructed one of the Officials of the Colonial Office to go out and investigate on the spot the financial arrangements of Antigua and Dominica and the other islands, and he has made a most interesting and valuable report on the whole subject. He confirms us in the opinion that, as regards this deficit, it is absolutely impossible for the island to pay, and impossible also for the island to raise more money by way of loan. Consequently, the island comes to us in formâ pauperis, and I have asked from the Treasury a grant of £10,000 to clear off the deficit and start it afresh. We have asked, at the same time, for a further grant of £5,000 to carry out works which are absolutely necessary unless the public works of the island are to go into complete disrepair. In the first place, expenditure is necessary to put the hospital into proper condition. That is, in one sense, remunerative expenditure, because, when once made it will enable us to do without special accommodation to meet a most terrible disease which sometimes breaks out in the West Indies. Then there is a jetty, which was practically destroyed by a violent hurricane, requiring repair. The lighthouse, also, is in a bad condition, and there are portions of roads on which a small expenditure will be useful to keep communications open. Therefore, we are asking to-day, not a loan for developing the island, but a grant from the Imperial Exchequer to deal with an emergency. It has been asked, why is Dominica chosen for this charitable treatment? There are special claims in Dominica which do not constitute a precedent for any subsequent application. In the first place, after the island was conquered, a very large amount of Crown land was sold, and the proceeds, instead of being applied, as is always the case now, to the advantage of the island, were paid into the English Treasury. That was about 1780, and the sum is variously estimated at from £200,000 to £300,000. The result of that, of course, is that what would have been resources of the island to be applied to its development, have no longer been under the control of the governing authorities. That in itself constitutes a claim for generous treatment. I am sorry to say that the other claim is

  1411
  one that may fairly be based upon past bad administration. The loans which have been raised in times past for public works carried out in the island were applied in part under advice from this country, and the perusal of Sir Robert Hamilton's report will show that there is no doubt that the funds were not applied to the best advantage for the island, and we are, to a certain extent, responsible for the incapacity of the Administrators appointed by ourselves. It is upon those two grounds that I ask for the present grant. But I should not make a complete statement if I did not say that I propose at a later date to submit to the Treasury proposals for the development of the island which will come under the policy I submitted to the House last Session. ["Hear, hear!"] There are 93,000 acres of Crown land in Dominica which by common consent and by all reports contain some of the very best land to be found in the West Indies, which is suitable to many forms of tropical cultivation, and which could be worked advantageously at this moment, if only there were proper communications. But there are none. You cannot get at these lands by sea; there are no roads; and such a thing as a railway does not exist in the island. If it can be shown that by making communications, even at a considerable expense, these lands can be brought into cultivation, and if it can be shown that there are people willing to take up the land at a fair value when communications are opened, then that will be an investment which I shall be justified in asking the House to sanction. The result will be, in the first place, that Great Britain will lose nothing by making the loan, and, in the second place, the colony will be developed.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is now going away from the particular item of this Vote, and discussing future policy.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Then all I will say is that at a later day I may have an opportunity of explaining the policy to which the hon. Member is prepared to take exception.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, that this question had occupied a great deal of the late Government's attention, and he
  1412
  hoped that, after the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, the Amendment would not be persisted in. The sum now asked for was in the nature of a compassionate allowance, and had nothing to do with the policy of development, which would have to be discussed later. He did not, perhaps, go quite as far as the right hon. Gentleman in wishing to spend money on the Crown colonies, but he knew that, in too many cases, such colonies, instead of being encouraged, had been discouraged by Downing-street from developing themselves. Personally he should give a favourable consideration to any proposals brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman, if it could be shown the possibility of loss to the British taxpayer was small and of gain to the colony very great. His experience in respect of Dominica entirely justified the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. In the past we had robbed the island, and of late we had not administered it well; and, unless something were done by way of a compassionate allowance, the island would sink deeper into the slough and become useless to the Empire. This grant was better than others which had been given Mauritius, Newfoundland, and other colonies, where the money had been spent without productive result. Apart from any larger policy, this grant would enable Dominica to start on a better basis to carry out some of the public works which were necessary to her prosperity, and to be no longer almost a disgrace to the British Crown. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. F. W. FISONsaid, that he had just returned from Dominica, which presented one of the most interesting of the colonial problems to be discussed by the House. The island was one of the richest in the West Indies in productive capacity, and he hoped the Secretary for the Colonies would give Parliament an opportunity of converting it from a disgrace to a credit to British Administration. There were no main roads in Dominica, and the planter on the Windward coast could not get his produce across the island, and, owing to the surf, had often to wait a whole year before he could get it aboard ship. A jetty was also badly wanted. He tried to cross the Island through the primeval forest, but in three

  1413
  days made only eight miles' progress and back. He reached that large distict of rich Crown lands at present entirely unprofitable. He also came across the traces of an old French road which was in use at the end of the last century. He hoped the Secretary for the Colonies would pursue his policy of developing the undeveloped colonies, (Cheers.)
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that if the hon. Member had gone to other parts of the West Indies and Central America he would have found millions of acres of excellent land where there were no main roads. The produce was carried by mules along bridle-paths. The absence of roads did not prevent cultivation. The reason was that in the summer months these districts were infested with yellow fever. If the land in Dominica was so rich, why did no one take it up? There must be some special reason. He did not know how other Members fared, but it happened to him once a week that he received a letter from some person in some part of England saying that his grandfather, who had lived early in the century, had done something and had been robbed by the Government; and asking him to bring the case before Parliament in order that the money might be returned with compound interest. He always threw such letters into the waste-paper basket, and he thought the Colonial Secretary would have done better had he followed a similar course in regard to the dismal moans of the islanders of Dominica. The right hon. Gentleman said that we ought to give this £15,000 because in some mysterious way our ancestors had robbed the ancestors of the islanders of £200,000 in the last century. Then if we were to be just we should give the Dominicans £200,000. The right hon. Gentleman also said that loans which had been borrowed by the island had been frittered away by our Governors. But if we were to make ourselves responsible for the maladministration of money made by our Governors of colonies we would never hear the end of our liabilities. Surely if the island was such a wonderful place as had been described by the Colonial Secretary it ought to be able to find £500 per annum to pay the interest on this money, if it were advanced to them by way of loan. Remember the Dominicans were not poor people. They
  1414
  were planters who wanted to get rich by the labour of others. The House was often asked to spend money on public works in aid of the unemployed in this country, and had refused. But in this case the money was to be taken away from the people of this country and spent on wealthy, idle, lazy planters. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and laughter.] He knew them well—he had lived amongst them, and they were lazy, lounging, drunken planters of the West India islands. He protested against such expenditure. His hon. Friend the Member for Poplar had said he was in favour of this Vote. He was not astonished. He had never voted for a single Estimate his hon. Friend had brought forward. His hon. Friend argued that he had voted money under similar circumstances for Newfoundland. Well, he (Mr. Labouchere) had protested against the Vote for Newfoundland, and he would continue to protest against wasting public money on such enterprises.
  MR. T. H. COCHRANEwas sure that as the Vote was necessary for the prosperity of the island the Committee would assent to it. The statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster that it took him three days to make a progress of eight miles showed the necessity which existed for opening up the interior of the island. It was intended to turn Rossa, the principal town of the island into a municipality.
  MR. LOUGH: Then why not lend the money?
  MR. COCHRANEsaid, the idea was to clear off the deficit of the island, and then start Rossa afresh as a municipality when it would be responsible for its own debts.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEpointed out that this money would have to come out of the pockets of the people, and the question was whether in the present condition of this country, it was wise to spend money for a purpose so remote? The hon. Member explained that it was intended to start the colony afresh. He should be glad if the debts of his constituency of Forest of Dean were wiped out and it were allowed to start afresh. It was said there were 93,000 acres of Government land in Dominica. In his constituency there were 23,000 acres of Government land which were involved

  1415
  in a similar manner, and he thought he could make out a stronger case for a grant to the Forest of Dean than a grant for Dominica. They had enormous taxes and rates in the Forest, which was entirely the property of the Crown—amounting to 6s. in the pound—and he thought it would be a hard case to ask the poor of a constituency of that kind to contribute towards an expenditure for an object in which this country's interest was so remote. Therefore, if the grant were asked because it would be an advantage to Dominica he would return a negative. But apart from that consideration, there was the question of honour. There might have been circumstances in the past treatment of the colony which called for the expenditure of this money. He had listened carefully to the evidence on that ground; and on the whole, he did not think it a sufficiently strong case to warrant a Vote of money for which they would have no return. He would, therefore, support the Amendment.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLsaid, the question that the expenditure of the money would not be an advantage to this country was not so certain as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean assumed. If the island were developed and its trade increased there would be immediate advantage to the workers of this country. It was said that the money would be better spent amongst the poor of the Kingdom. He doubted whether such a policy would be wise. He believed the working classes of this country were more assisted by the development of the trade of the Colonies than by any unwise direct expenditure amongst themselves. He, therefore, supported the grant in the well founded hope that the development of Dominica would tend to the advantage of the working classes of this country.
  MR. J. G. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)supported the Amendment. Why should they spend money on a remote island in which it took three days to travel eight miles. The Secretary of the Colonies knew the Highlands of Scotland. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman knew that there were many parts of the Highlands where there were absolutely no roads and that the people had nevertheless to pay
  1416
  road rates. With money at its present low rate, there would be no difficulty in getting an ample supply to make roads in Dominica through private enterprise. Why should this country sink £15,000 when the money could be laid out more profitably in the encouragement of working people in the healthy climate of our own island?
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 72; Noes, 250.—(Division List, No. 22.)
  SIR E. ASHMEAD BARTLETTasked the right hon. Gentleman, the Colonial Secretary, whether the Vote included the journey of Sir Hercules Robinson.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, it did not. It was caused by the extraordinary number of changes in the Governments. No fewer than five Governments went out of office.
  Vote agreed to.
  £20,975, Supplementary, British East Africa—
  MR. REGINALD McKENNAcalled attention to the Vote because there was something which he thought needed explanation. It was composed of two items, and he confessed he did not know why they were lumped together. The cost of the Administration was a very distinct matter from the cost of the acquisition of the Mackinnon Road. In acquiring the property of the British East Africa Company, the original view of this Government was that the Mackinnon Road formed part of the assets which should be taken over by this country for the payment of £200,000. The Government later saw reason to change their view, and did not include it in the then stipulated price. Fresh negotiations were entered into and the Government increased the price by £50,000 which ought to have covered the Mackinnon Road. The reason given for the road not being covered by the original price was by no means satisfactory. It was said that the road was built by Sir William Mackinnon and leased to the British East Africa Company at a peppercorn rent, the company undertaking to bear the cost of the maintenance of the road. Under these

  1417
  circumstances the late Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs came to the conclusion that the road was not the property of the company, but of the executors of Sir Win. Mackinnon, but he could not understand why a beneficial lease on a peppercorn rent should not be considered a valuable asset of the company. The Foreign Office at that time did not think it proper to include it as an asset covered by the £200,000 and it was excluded. Under the increased price of £50,000, making £250,000 in all, there was no express exclusion of this road, and it would appear that the road was included and handed over to the Government with the rest of the assets of the company. If it were not so handed over it would surely have been a remarkable thing that a bare road should have been left in the hands of the executors while the British Government took over the whole of the rest of the property. He thought they ought to have some statement from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs as to the exact price paid for the road and as to why the beneficial lease which the British East Africa Company had in this road on a peppercorn rent was sacrificed when the company's property was taken over.
  MR. CURZONsaid, that the British East Africa Company spent upon this road, in the first place, a sum of 5,000 rupees. They were not able to expend any more money upon it and Sir William Mackinnon, out of his own pocket, continued the construction of the road. When he died, this road passed to his executors. When the Administration was taken over last year, the Government at first thought of leasing the road from the executors, but, as the Committee would remember, in August last, the announcement was made of the immediate commencement of the railway. From that time the situation changed. It was found that the Uganda Railway would cross and recross the road at quite a number of places for the first 90 miles of its course, and it was feared that difficulties might arise in connection with plots of land adjoining the road. For these reasons it was decided by the Railway Committee who were managing the Uganda Railway that it would be desirable to substitute for the idea of leasing the road from the executors the pur-
  1418
  chase of it from them. The only question to be determined was the price to be paid. A very careful calculation, based on the actual expenditure which Sir Wm. Mackinnon had incurred, was made, and it was decided that a fair price for the acquisition of the road would be a sum of 61,000 rupees, or £3,400. That was the amount demanded in this Estimate, which would be required to complete the purchase.
  SIR C. DILKEthought his hon. Friend had elicited from the right hon. Gentleman a very interesting explanation, which would relieve them from the necessity of taking any steps with regard to the Vote, except to agree to it. He would, however, like some information as to the rest of this Vote for the Administration of the country.
  MR. CURZONsaid, that taking the £34,000 for the road, they had a sum of about £17,500 left. Of that £14,780 was the cost of Administration, including the military operations to which he had made some reference that afternoon in reply to a Question by the right hon. Baronet, and £2,820 was the payment to the Sultan of Zanzibar for his troops engaged in the course of those operations on the mainland.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANANsaid, he did not wish to anticipate the answer of the Secretary of State for India to a Question which he had on the Paper for Monday, but he ventured to suggest to the House that the charge for the Indian troops engaged in those operations should be borne by the Imperial Government and not by the Indian Exchequer.
  MR. CURZONsaid, he would not anticipate the luxury which would be enjoyed by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India on Monday. He might mention that in the neighbourhood of Mombasa there was a large number of native chiefs, members of an Arab aristocracy, who were continually fighting with each other. They commenced these acts of rebellion against the Sultan of Zanzibar before the British East Africa Company came into existence. For a time after that, they were fairly quiet, but during the past year they had renewed their activity, and their internecine warfare. Owing to the difficulty of composing the quarrels by those responsible for the Administration of

  1419
  the country, an Indian regiment had been sent over to Mombasa to put an end to the disturbances which interfered with the progress of the Administration. They hoped at a very early date to secure the pacification of the Arabs in that part of the country.
  SIR C. DILKEexpressed the opinion that the Foreign Office was absolutely unfitted to hold the control of territories of this kind where military operations were constantly carried on. No one could have a higher opinion of the Foreign Office than he had, but he did not regard it as the proper Department for work of this kind. Cyprus was too heavy a burden upon it and now it was charged with these enormous territories in Africa. He believed it would certainly lead to a muddle, and to an increass instead of a diminution of wars so long as the Foreign Office was charged with interests different to those for which it was created.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCEdesired to say a word or two as to the way in which this district had been managed during the few months since which it had been taken over by the British Government as compared with its management under the much maligned British East Africa Company. They now heard that troops were on their way to Mombasa. When the company were administering the territory they paid the principal native chief to keep him quiet. He submitted that if the simple process of paying modest sums had been continued until civilisation was more advanced they should not have lost the valuable lives they had lost in that district and a lot of good money would not have been wasted. There had been much said about the mismanagement of the Chartered Company, but he thought that having regard to what they heard of the British East Africa Company and what they heard from Zanzibar now, there was reason to think that the district was more carefully, more sympathetically, and more economically managed by the company than it was by the present or by the late Government. Speaking of the unhappy company which had now gone into the shades of history, he considered that its Members were entitled to some praise for the excellent manner in which they handled the affairs of the vast ter- 1420
  ritory they controlled for over four years, and which was in striking contrast to its management since it had come under the Administration of the British Government.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLasked whether judicious methods had been entirely abandoned by the Foreign Office. They had had a good lesson in British Administration in Central Africa under Sir Henry Johnston; that Administration had proved a success both in regard to military operations and in its civil government. Sir Henry Johnston was living there in the middle of the territory he had to administer. In operations of that character, being military operations, it was of immense importance to have the military authority in touch with the persons over whom he had to rule. He considered that if in the East African territory a similar course had been taken as that adopted by the appointment of Sir Henry Johnston in Central Africa, it would have been better and more conducive to the interests of all concerned.
  MR. CURZON(who was imperfectly heard) was understood to agree with the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division that the British East Africa Company had been unfairly attacked. His hon. Friend the Member for Holderness, asked why a similar course was not adopted in the case of British East Africa to that taken in the territory administered by Sir Henry Johnston. The situation they had to deal with just after they took over the country did not at present permit of it, and in consequence of one of the principal chiefs rebelling against the new Administration, they had to take certain measures which would otherwise not have been necessary. The Government were by no means anxious to pursue military operations. It was not with pleasure they did so. They wanted to pacify the district, and their one desire was to be freed from the necessity of such operations and to aid in the peaceful development of these countries. He looked forward himself to the time when these large possessions would be in a state of contentment and tranquillity, and when they might be able to appoint an Imperial officer specially to look after them.
  Vote agreed to.
  £18,725, Treasury Chest—agreed to.

  CLASS VI.
  £7,000, Supplementary, Superannuations and Retired Allowances—agreed to.

  CLASS VII.
  £116,557, Supplementary, Repayment to the Local Loans Fund,—
  MR. LOUGHobserved that he did not see why this should be a Supplementary Estimate at all. It seemed to him an attempt to make good some repayments of local loans. He desired to ask a question or two with reference to this Vote. The first sum amounted to £65,000, written off, as he understood, in respect of loans for the redemption of waste lands in Ireland. What was the meaning of this, and why should it come into the Supplemental Estimates? Why should not an arrangement be made when they were dealing with the General Estimates? The next item related to a loan to the Waterford and Wexford Railway amounting to £30,000 or £31,000. There was a reference in the Irish Local Government Board's report to the fact that some railway upon which the Government had lent £30,000 or £40,000 had been sold for something like £4,000 or £5,000. Was this sum in respect of the loss made upon that town? Was it to get rid of this loss which was made by the sale of the railway? There appeared to have been only two annuities paid on the total loan to the Waterford and Wexford Railway, and now the whole of it was written off. He desired to know if this was a loss on the sum lent many years ago to Irish railway companies and whether there were any such loans outstanding?
  MR. HANBURYreplied that the subject of the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company's loan was governed entirely by the Act of Parliament of 1893, and the only way in which it arose in this Vote was because Parliament had to make good any deficiency in the assets of the Local Loan Fund in those cases where debts had been written off the Fund's assets by Parliament. In three cases out of six appearing on the Vote they were dealing with loans which had been wiped off by Acts
  1422
  passed during the year 1895, and therefore it was necessary to take it in the Supplementary Estimates because the assets of the Local Loans Fund had to be made good. These sums had been dealt with already by Acts of Parliament and as the amounts had been wiped off by Acts of Parliament they were bound by those Acts to repay the money by subsequent Votes. The reason a Supplementary Vote was needed was that under the Act they were empowered either to repay the Local Loan Fund by a lump sum, or a series of annual payments in the shape of annuities. It had been thought that, instead of allowing annuities to run on, spread over a larger number of years, it would be better to pay off the sum during the current year.
  MR. J. McLEODinquired what was the total sum expended under the head of Loans to Fishermen, provided for in the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886; how much had been repaid, how much had been cancelled, and how much was still outstanding?
  MR. HANBURYsaid, the Vote was gone into when the Bill on which the Supplementary Estimate was based was passed a few months ago, but if the hon. Member wanted the information, and put a Question on the matter, he would endeavour to supply it.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid, this was a good object-lesson on the pernicious character of legislation by dole for local purposes. He and others had often protested against it, and if ever the Secretary to the Treasury wanted assistance to prevent the continuance of this mischievous legislation, he would receive it from himself and others sitting near him.
  MR. CALDWELLpointed out that of the total sum only £478 applied to the Highlands of Scotland, the rest of the money going to Ireland, whore £100,000 had been doled out. In many respects the Highlands of Scotland were in a more distressed condition than the congested districts in Ireland. He did not object to the latter getting money when they needed it, but the Scotch Members considered that the Highlands of Scotland, which needed it quite as much, should be treated with the same liberality.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESjoined in the protest of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean in protesting against legislation by doles. The original Estimate under the head of relief of distress in Ireland was only £18,000, and since then a sum of £116,000 in addition was required. He submitted that these doles, issued from the Imperial Treasury, did no good whatever, but only harm. They were wasted and "jobbed away" and demoralised those who got them. He was sorry to find that one of the first things his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had done had been to multiply the amount of original dole by ten. He expected his hon. Friend would keep the Government straight. If he went on in this way he should have to consider his hon. Friend's salary. [Laughter.] Why should £18,000 be considered insufficient and his hon. Friend now come for this stupendous increase of £116,000? No doubt his hon. Friend was casting his eye on the death-duties. "There is such a lot of money going," he said. "We must do something with it. What can we do? There is waste land in Ireland, and the Waterford railway. Let us give £60,000 to the one and £30,000 to the other." Hence this Supplementary Estimate. He would not move a reduction or vote against it, but some protest was needed against the policy of Imperial doles for local purposes.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, his hon. Friend had quite mistaken the object of the Vote. It had nothing to do with further loans whatever. What had happened was that under certain Acts of Parliament certain debts had been wiped off as far as the Local Loans Fund was concerned. If they could recover them, well and good, but they were bound by statute to devote money to cover the deficiency created in the assets of the Local Loans Fund. No new loans for England, Scotland, or Ireland were proposed. They simply proposed to fill up the deficiency in the Local Loans Fund created by certain Acts of Parliament. His hon. Friend talked of the large increase in the Vote this year as if there was a large addition to the doles. It was nothing of the kind. The larger portion of the increase arose from the fact that instead of going on repaying the Local Loans Fund as they might have
  1424
  done by an annuity spread over a series of years, they were paying the whole sum out of the revenue of last year. No extra money whatever had been spent.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNORreminded hon. Members that the Irish people would require no doles from the English Parliament if they were not overtaxed to the extent of two millions a year in their contribution to Imperial Funds. That they were overtaxed to that extent was clear from the Report of the Financial Relations Committee. He would point out to the Committee that, of all the money spent on the Army and Navy, scarcely one per cent. was spent in Ireland. The sum spent on the Army and Navy in Ireland was scarcely worth mentioning. He objected to the granting of doles to the Irish people. If they were not overtaxed they would be able to contribute to their own expenses, and not require doles from that House.
  Vote agreed to.
  £5,859, Supplementary, Relief of Distress, Ireland.
  MR. LOUGHsuggested that what had been said about Ireland on the last Vote would have been better said on this. On the showing of their Financial Relations Committee, Ireland was heavily overtaxed, and he asked the Government whether they would continue to give out these doles of £80,000, £250,000, or £500,000 for light railways which would go bankrupt, or adopt the honest policy of adjusting the taxation of the Irish people to suit their means of paying. If they took the last 10 or 20 years they would find that whereas the population of Ireland had decreased by three-quarters of a million, the taxes had been increased by two millions. He should be glad to hear from a responsible Member of the Government that they were going to make the burden of taxation such as Ireland could bear.
  MR. DOUGLAS COGHILLsaid, he protested against the policy of dealing out doles to Ireland, which he thought was adopted because that country had 103 votes. He hoped that that policy would not be pursued any longer.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, that it was not proposed to make any further grant to Ireland at the present time. The net sum of £80,000 had been voted for the relief of Irish distress, and of that sum £5,859 remained unappropriated. In order to fulfil the purposes for which provision had aready been made by Parliament, it was proposed to revote the unexpended balance of £5,859, and to pay it over as a grant in aid of the funds of the Congested Districts Board, who would undertake to expend the money in completing certain relief works which would remain unfinished at the end of the year.
  Vote agreed to.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  £7,000, Supplementary, Inland Revenue,—
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that he wished to put questions to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury with reference to the position of the Legacy or other indoor Offices for which he perceived a sum of £3,800 was asked. Was that sum to be applied to the purposes of the Inland Revenue Office?
  MR. HANBURYsaid that the sum of £3,800 was to be appropriated to the requirements of the Legacy Offices in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked in what proportion they were to be so appropriated?
  MR. HANBURYsaid that it was rather difficult to give the exact proportions in which the money would be appropriated among the three Legacy Offices.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that of course it was only natural that there should be an increase in the amount required for the Legacy Offices in consequence of the additional work imposed upon the Department in consequence of the increase of the revenue caused by the new Estate Duty, but it appeared to him that this sum of £3,800 was asked for, not for the purposes of the Legacy Duty Office, but largely for the purposes of the Inland Revenue Department. The fact was that the Legacy Duty Office was entirely distinct from the Inland Revenue Department, and that it did its own work
  1426
  independently altogether of the Inland Revenue Department. The connection between the two offices was a most unfortunate one, and it ought to cease. The result of the connection was that the work of the Legacy Duty Office sometimes had to be done twice over. In his view that work would be far better done if the two offices were separated, especially if the Probate Duty Office were to be joined to the Legacy Duty Office, to which it properly belonged. Nothing but double expense, double work, and delay resulted from the present system. The work that had to be discharged in the Legacy Duty Office required a lifelong study on the part of the members of the Department. The men who had passed their lives in the Department possessed great ability, and they alone were competent to deal with the duties under the Finance Act. Under the present system, by which the Legacy Duty Department was joined with the Inland Revenue Department, they were mixing up experts with men who knew nothing about the subject of Legacy Duty. With regard to the statistics of the Legacy Duty Department, it was strange that they could not furnish them themselves instead of through that fifth wheel, the Inland Revenue Department. The fact was that the Legacy Duty Department had now become one of such great importance that it ought to be made an independent one. He strongly commended his suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, and to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. LABOUCHEREwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury how it was that while the amount of personalty a man left was always duly recorded in the newspapers, the amount of his real estate was never stated? He supposed that the amount of the personalty was obtained from the Government Department.
  THE CHAIRMANcalled the hon. Member to order. The hon. Member was going beyond the subject of Debate.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on question [20th February], "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Acts relating to Public Health in Ireland."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  MR. J. P FARRELLthought, before the House proceeded to give leave for the introduction of this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman should give some explanation of its provisions, with a view to ascertaining what its effect would be.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)said that the object of the Bill was to remove certain defects which had been shown to exist in the working of the present Acts, and to assimilate the law with that of England. The Bill was circulated with a memorandum explaining the purport of the various clauses, and he would undertake not to move the Second Reading until hon. Members had had a full opportunity of mastering its details.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.
  Presented accordingly and read 1a; to be read 2a upon Monday next.—[Bill 118.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ELECTIONS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
  MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELLregretted to have to oppose a Measure which he looked upon as a necessary Measure; but it would be in the recollection of the House that by an Order issued by the Local Government Board, the elections for Parish Councils must take place on March 9th. He thought he would be able to show that that was a most inconvenient day, as it would have the effect of disqualifying a large
  1428
  number of electors in the rural districts. The ordinary day on which people changed their houses was Lady Day, March 25th, and supposing a man changed his house on March 25th last, he would be disqualified from voting at the election on March 9th this year. When the Local Government Act was passed in 1894 they all took pride to themselves that they were getting rid, as far as possible, of qualifications. They endeavoured to make the time qualification as short as possible, and it was fixed at 12 months. What would be the effect of the Order of the Local Government Board? It would be this, that, in the case he had mentioned, instead of a residential qualification of 12 months, the elector would have to have practically a residential qualification of two years. Therefore the Order actually transgressed the spirit of the Act of 1894. This Bill was a Bill to correct mistakes. He believed the Bill to be necessary because mistakes would occur, and he was inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had made a very great mistake by the issue of this Order. The better plan would be for the right hon. Gentleman to admit it and try to correct it; and he thought it was the duty of the Government to amend this Bill in such a way as to make it cover the difficulty to which he had called attention. He would press on the President of the Local Government Board the importance of this question, and ask him that he would, at any rate, attempt so to amend this Bill as to prevent this disqualification of electors. He begged to move that the Bill be read a Second Time this day six months.
  MR. C. J. MONKsaid, he had no intention of opposing the Bill; indeed, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to carry it through rapidly; but he rose to suggest an Amendment which would remedy a great evil which existed in certain parts of the country. The President of the Local Government Board had appointed March 9th for the election of parish councillors, and under the principal Act it was necessary that the assembly of the parish meeting should be held on March 25th. In many parishes it would be extremely inconvenient that two parish meetings should be held within a fortnight of each I other. His Amendment was that "The

  1429
  Local Government Board may, by Order, authorise the holding of the annual assembly of the parish meeting on the same day as that on which the election of Parish Councillors takes place."
  MR. SPEAKER: As far as I can see, that is not pertinent to the purport of the Bill. This Bill is merely a Bill to enable the Local Government Board to set right any mistakes made in working the election machinery. Any discussion on voters' qualifications or the day of the election would be foreign to the subject matter of the Bill.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr HENRY CHAPLIN,)said, that while he quite sympathised with the hon. Member for Tavistock, he must point out to him that he had taken a somewhat extraordinary course, for while he desired to see the law amended in certain respects, for which great facilities were afforded in this Bill, the hon. Member had moved that the Bill be read a Second Time this day six months, and it would be quite impossible to amend the Measure if that Motion were carried. The hon. Gentleman said that a most inconvenient day had been fixed for the elections. It might or it might not be an inconvenient day, but he ventured to think that that was a matter on which there might be some difference of opinion. The hon. Member said that one effect of this Order would necessarily be to disqualify people who had gone into residence upon March 25, 1895, and that I this would be to transgress the spirit of the Act of 1894. But the elections at which there were to be polls were to be held on March 30, and he was told that it was an open question whether people who had gone into residence on March 25, 1895, would not be competent to go to the poll on March 30, 1896. Of course if it should appear that the day selected should have the effect of disfranchising people who would not otherwise be disfranchised some alteration would clearly be necessary.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I do not see anything with regard to qualification in this Bill nor anything about fixing a date.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that of course he should respect the Speaker's ruling. He thought he had said enough to show the hon. Member opposite that he was not wanting in sympathy with the view
  1430
  that hon. Member took. He believed that the passing of this Bill was most desirable and necessary in the interests of the coming elections, and that it would to a large extent meet the views of hon. Members.
  MR. FRANCIS S. STEVENSONasked what the precise effect of the poll would be with regard to the Order that had been issued. The object of the Bill was to remedy certain irregularities, and he took it that the Bill would not pass for a good many days, perhaps not until after the 9th of March. [Mr. CHAPLIN: "No, no!"] Well, he wished to know to what extent it would apply to what was likely to take place in the course of next month. The probability was that there would be a good many irregularities in the elections this year. Would it be in the power of County Councils to remedy those irregularities if the passage of the Bill were delayed until after March 9. Would the Bill be retrospective in its application, and what was the view of the Local Government Board with regard to the question whether it was possible for the parish meeting convened for the purpose of electing the Parish Council to synchronise with the annual parish meeting?
  MR. SPEAKER: In what part of the Bill is there anything about the date of meeting? As I read it this is a Bill under which when any difficulty arises in respect of any parish annual election, or of the first meeting or in consequence of any defective machinery in elections, the County Council may by order do anything which appears to them necessary or expedient for the proper holding of the meeting. The Order referred to means any Order relating to such matters as are mentioned in the first section which governs the Bill.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONsaid, that the object of the Bill was to enable the County Council to do certain things when an election was not held, or was defective. If the election of a Parish Council should not take place on March 9 it would be irregular, and the object of the Bill was to enable the County Council to remedy that irregularity. He wished to know whether in the event of an irregularity of that kind taking place the County Council was to have power to say that a fresh election should be

  1431
  held, or would they be able to ratify the irregular election and give it legal value?
  MR. LUTTRELLasked leave to withdraw this Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill Read 2a, and committed for Monday next.

  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
  On the Order for going into Committee on this Bill,
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University) moved that the Order be discharged and that the Bill be referred to the Grand Committee on Trade. This course, he said, would be in accordance with the wishes of the Home Secretary, and he believed it would be convenient to hon. Members who desired to move Amendments.
  MAJOR P. H. DALBIACobjected to the Motion. The Bill contained a great deal affecting the interests of the poorer members of the community, and was a Measure that ought to be discussed in Committee of the whole House.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEhoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his objection. He was a new Member and so perhaps did not quite understand that after a Bill had been before a Grand Committee it came down to the House again for further consideration. This Bill was eminently suited for discussion in Grand Committee.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLtrusted that the Motion of the right hon. Baronet would be agreed to. This was a Bill which could be referred with the greatest advantage to the Standing Committee on Trade. The Factories Bill was referred last Session to that Committee and dealt with in as satisfactory a manner as possible, having regard to the fact that a General Election was imminent. That Bill would not have become law if it had not been so referred. There was a Resolution recorded by that House in favour of the Bill now under consideration. [Some cries of "Agreed" from the Opposition Benches.] He claimed that he was entitled to speak on this subject and he wished that the hon. Members who had
  1432
  interrupted him had given as much attention to it as he had. ["Hear, hear!"] Three Committees had considered the subject and he had served on each one of them. He certainly ought not to be interrupted by Members who had not taken the same pains as he had to acquire information. Hon. Members on the other side of the House who professed to represent the working classes ought to give a hearing to one who stood before them as the representative of an eminently industrial constituency. ["Hear, hear!"] These interruptions in a discussion of this character were hardly consistent with the claims of the hon. Members who interrupted to be the special advocates of the cause of the working classes.
  MR. F. WOOTTON ISAACSONsaid, that several years ago he had promoted meetings among the shopkeepers in his constituency in order to learn their views on legislation of this kind. The Bill had been very much improved since that time, but as it was very desirable that its details should be thoroughly examined he hoped that it would be referred to the Grand Committee.
  MR. JOHN BURNSobserved that there were proposals in the Bill which he did not approve. It certainly ought to go to the Grand Committee. The hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan had entirely misinterpreted the interruptions of which he complained. His hon. Friends near him thought that brief discussion at this stage would best serve the interests which the hon. Baronet had at heart. They all respected the hon. Baronet, who had given such untiring attention to this and a hundred subjects, and the last thing they would wish to do would be to show him intentional discourtesy.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)hoped that after what had passed the hon. Member for North Camberwell would not think it necessary to press his objection. There was evidently a general feeling in every part of the House in favour of referring this very important Bill to a Committee which was specially qualified to thresh it out. There was no Party question involved in this Measure, but it was a matter of great detail and difficulty. It was precisely such a subject that a Grand Com-

  1433
  mittee could deal successfully with, and when his hon. friend was enabled to see that the Committee worked well he would come to the conclusion that his constituents rather gained than lost by the suggestion which had been made. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would reserve his criticisms until the Grand Committee sent the Bill back, when he would be able to make any observations he chose in a full House in the interests of those whom he represented.
  Order for Committee discharged; and Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, &c.

  MERCHANT SEAMEN (EMPLOYMENT AND RATING) BILL.
  MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSON, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said at present it was all important that this country should have a body of men connected with the Mercantile Marine, upon whom it should be able to rely in time of war or danger. At present the qualifications of a seaman now serving in the Mercantile Marine were anything but satisfactory. The law of 1880 provided that no person shall have the rating of able seamen on board British vessels unless he had served four years at sea. But the working of that Act had not been satisfactory. There were thousands of men going to sea at present who were not competent seamen. If a seaman now signing on a vessel was not able to produce four years' service to prove his competency, the Board of Trade made arrangements whereby he would be entered on the articles as an able seaman giving him the description "N.P.," which meant "not proven" as to sea service. It was more important to-day to have a better class of men on steamers and sailing ships than it was many years ago. There had been a steady decrease year by year in the number of men employed on steamers and sailing vessels. In consequence of the keen competition in the shipping trades managing owners had considerably reduced the staff on board vessels. There were vessels sailing to-day which formerly carried eight and nine able-bodied sea-men; now they were carrying four or five. There were hon. Members who intended to oppose this Bill in the
  1434
  interests of the Shipping Federation. He believed the reason was that the Shipping Federation already insisted on seamen having four years service before giving them a parchment certificate enabling them to ship on board. He denied this. At the present time large numbers of men were obtaining certificates from the Shipping Federation without producing one day's sea service. Only last week a case was brought under his notice of a man who went to the Shipping Federation office in London, and without producing one day's sea service got a certificate certifying that he was a competent seaman to go on board a ship. All that the Bill asked for was that a seaman before he should be entitled to the rating of able seaman, should produce four years' discharge either as an apprentice or as an ordinary seaman. Only last November, in consequence of an incompetent man being at the wheel of a vessel and not understanding the orders which were given by the chief mate, a collision occurred, the other vessel was run down and five lives were lost. The present Act provided that a seaman should serve at least three years on board a vessel or that he had gone to sea for one year in a registered decked fishing vessel. He had made some alteration in the Bill, because at the present time sailing ships were rapidly dying out, and in 20 years sailing ships would be scarce in the Mercantile Marine. Provision was made so that a lad might serve his time as an apprentice or ordinary seaman for four years on a steamship and then to be rated as an able seaman on board ship. The Bill did not prohibit the employment of foreign seamen. A forother could serve on board vessels just as an Englishman did, but before he was entitled to the rating of able seaman he must be able to prove to the satisfaction of an officer of the Mercantile Marine that he had been four years in the capacity of ordinary seaman or apprentice, and in addition, that he should be able to understand the common orders given on board the vessel. It was absolutely dangerous to have a crew of foreigners on board who were unable to understand the orders given by the officers. Out of about 200,000 men and officers employed in the Mercantile Marine there were not more than about 45,000 British born sailors

  1435
  and firemen. That was a serious matter, and the sooner the House dealt with the question the better it would be for the Empire. In the event of war and we should need men to man our ships, from whence were we to get them? Could we place Lascar seamen on board war ships to do our fighting in the place of the British seamen? Twenty years ago we had in the Merchant Service about 20,000 sea-going apprentices; at present, there were only about 4,000 ordinary seamen and apprentices, and yet we owned 12 millions of tons of shipping. He believed that the Bill would go a long way to alter that state of affairs, and it would improve the seamen in every direction. There was only one way to check desertion or failure to join a ship, and that was by making the sailors and firemen hold and produce a parchment certificate similar to that held by officers of vessels. The desertions or failure to join on the part of officers in the Mercantile Marine did not represent more than 1 per cent. of the total number of persons engaged, whereas in the case of sailors and firemen it was probably something like 10 or 15 per cent. This parchment certificate the sailor or fireman would, at the time of signing articles, hand over to the captain, who, if the seaman failed to join, would hand over the certificate to the Board of Trade, and, before the man could get another certificate, he would have to give some account of himself to the Board of Trade as to why he failed to join his vessel. In London and in other ports there were a body of men who, he regretted to say, made it a practice to sign articles in a vessel with no intention whatever of going to sea. They did it for the purpose of getting advance notes, which they got cashed, and in the end the people who cashed the note lost their money. In consequence of these practices the shipowner was put to much inconvenience, as when his ship was ready for sea he found some of his crew were not there, and so he was compelled to ship the first man he could get to fill the place of the absentee. Men so obtained were often incompetent. This did not apply to the liners whose crews were well paid and well fed; it applied principally to tramp vessels such as sailed from the Tyne or from Cardiff, where men were paid the lowest rate of wages.
  1436
  At the port of Cardiff there were men paid as low as l½d. and 2d. per hour for their labour. Nobody could expect to get the best class of men for that wage. There was another clause in the Bill which he thought important. Where an incompetent fireman or stoker was engaged inconvenience was perhaps not much felt on board vessels which carried a large number of firemen and trimmers, but in the case of steamers of 2,000 or 3,000 tons who carried three or four firemen, and one or two subsequently proved to be incompetent, the matter was very different. In such a case the engineer was compelled very often to leave his engines and go into the stoke-hold and show these men how to do their work, or do it for them. He could not understand any shipowner, or any person interested in shipping, opposing this Bill. They complained that since the power of arrest without warrant was taken away they had had nothing but difficulties in getting men to join their vessels after signing articles. He ventured to say that this Bill placed such a power in the hands of shipowners that no sailor or fireman would dare to wrongfully, or without just cause, desert his vessel. It provided that the Board of Trade should appoint a Committee in each seaport town, composed of shipowners, shipmasters and representatives of engineers, firemen and sailors, which Committee should deal with the certificates of men who had failed to join their vessels at the appointed time. He ventured to say that it would be far more punishment for a sailor, or fireman, to go before such a Committee, composed partly of masters and partly of their own fellow workmen, and answer for misconduct, than it would be for them to go before a magistrate. For that reason he thought the Bill would be a means of improving the conduct of the sailors and firemen of the merchant service. It might be asked what would be done when a ship was in a foreign port and the captain could not get men with certificates. The Bill provided for that, by a clause enacting that it should only apply to the United Kingdom and the ports of the Continent between the Elbe and Brest. If sailors were required for a vessel lying in Hamburg, Antwerp or Rotterdam, they could be sent over from this country at the cost of a few shillings. Outside that area the Bill did not apply.

  1437
  He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to take a reasonable view of the Bill, because he was confident that, if he did so, the Bill would pass. The evidence before the Manning Committee provided enough justification for this Bill. Some might he inclined to say why not wait for the Report of that Committee? but they had been waiting for that Report for 12 months, and meanwhile lives were being lost. It would be worth passing the Bill if it saved only a few lives a year. It did not adversely affect the shipowner, and it would tend to benefit and improve the sailors and firemen, and he was sure that the officers, sailors, and firemen of the Mercantile Marine would be unanimously in favour of it. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would give them some hope that justice would be done to them at last.
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER after the usual interval—
  COLONEL DENNY*COLONEL DENNY (Kilmarnock Burghs) rose to move that the Bill be read a Second Time that day six months. He congratulated the hon. Member for Middlesbrough on the moderation of his tone, but said that a little analysis would show that the moderation was more apparent than real. For himself, he disclaimed any intention of underrating the necessity for having the best class of seamen in our Navy, and therefore in the merchant service, as the feeder of the Navy, but whether the Bill offered the best means of attaining that end might be open to doubt. While he had a respect for the Shipping Federation, he did not hold a brief for it. A number of gentlemen interested in the liners were leading men in the Federation. According to the hon. Member there were thousands of sailors holding AB certificates under false pretences, and ships and lives were risked by their incompetence. The hon. Member had cited one case, that of the Netley Abbey, which it was said was lost owing to the ignorance of the man at the wheel who did not understand English; but an answer given to the hon. Member yesterday by the President of the Board of Trade amounted to a direct contradiction of that statement. It was said the Shipping Federation had issued many certificates to men under
  1438
  false pretences; and here again one instance was cited, without names or particulars. If these things could be brought home to such an association, they should be laid before the President of the Board of Trade, who would deal with them. ["Hear, hear!"] For some years the character of British sailors had been aspersed, and foreign seamen had been imported into our merchant service largely because British seamen were not to be depended upon. This was being remedied by one of two competing associations, but by which might be left to inference. The hon. Member said that the officers of the Mercantile Marine were evidently of a high class, but it was the very men whom he eulogised as sticking to their agreements whom he condemned as taking incapable seamen with risk to life and property. A Bill of this kind ought to be opportune, necessary, and be introduced by a responsible Department. This Bill was inopportune, because they were still waiting for the Report of the Manning Commission appointed at the instance of the hon. Member himself. He appealed to the House whether a Bill of this kind, which affected so large a number of men and such an enormous amount of wealth and industry, should not be introduced by a responsible Department—he contended that it should not be by a private Member. He had noticed with pleasure and a little surprise the rapid conversion of the hon. Gentleman to the side of the shipowning class, but it was an extraordinary thing that they were opposed to this Bill. Perhaps they were suspicious of these rapid conversions. Now the question was, was this Bill necessary? They were well aware of the regulations of the Merchant Shipping Act, under which men were qualified by a certain term of service at sea, and did the hon. Member suggest that the officers under the Board of of Trade had so little interest in their business—were so little qualified to perform their duties—that they passed thousands of unqualified men. They were told that every day unqualified men were sent to sea with certificates issued by the responsible advisers of the President of the Board of Trade. He asked was it fair on the part of the hon. Member to cast a slur upon as hardworking a body of officials as ever existed.

  1439
  ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member said they were unfit to do their business.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid he wished to correct the hon. Member in the facts. He had cast no reflection on the Board of Trade or any other Department.
  COLONEL DENNYsaid, the hon. Member had avoided doing it in a direct way, but he said when you assert that a Department is passing through their hands men who are not qualified, then with all respect that Department was not doing their duty. That was practically a slur on the Department—to say that certificates were given to men who had not earned them. He hoped the House would pardon him for his lengthy statement, and he moved the rejection of the Bill.
  MR. BURNSsaid, he had been in that House for four years and during that period he had never listened to a more moderate speech or more rational and a more unimpassioned speech than the one delivered by his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough. In fact, he thought his hon. Friends did their cause considerable damage by their moderation. The Bill, too, was so excessively moderate that it surprised him and many other Members of the House. He thought that some of the implications, not to say the insinuations that had been made against the hon. Member for Middlesbrough would have been all the better if they had been couched in that tolerant spirit of fair play which he had displayed. The Member for Middlesbrough by the fortune of the ballot had a very successful opportunity of bringing this Bill to a Second Reading tonight, but he ventured to say that Samuel Plimsoll would not have been able to introduce the radical and the beneficent legislation which he brought forward unless he had spoken as he undoubtedly did with great vehemence. He came to the salient feature of the gallant Colonel's criticism on this particular Bill. He congratulated his hon. Friend on the tone of his speech, and he congratulated the gallant Colonel on his quotations and statistics. In respect to the figures with regard to British born seamen the case had been proved up to the hilt. The gallant Colonel, with a view to minimise the object of this Bill, ventured to say that the Member for
  1440
  Middlesbrough made wholesale charges as regarded the wholesale loss of life that occurred owing to the employment of incompetent foreign seamen. Let them take the gallant Colonel through his own Blue-book. Was it not a serious matter that 2,100 sailors should be killed every year? Was it not a serious matter that 2,500 sailors, firemen and fishermen should be killed every year? Was it not an important matter that they should consider that above the 2,500 there should be many thousands of men injured? He was perfectly certain that the President of the Board of Trade, if it could be alleged that even a dozen sailors were killed annually, as the result of incompetence or ignorance, or the lack of experience, would be one of the first to ask that this Bill should have hearty support. He wanted to go a bit further. The Manning Committee had many witnesses before it. It would be contrary to the Rules to disclose it. [An HON. MEMBER, "No, no!"] He would rather satisfy his own conscience. There was not a single witness or shipowner, master, engineer or seaman who had not admitted that four years' minimum experience at sea was very desirable. That being so, why haggle because his hon. Friend had gone a little further and said those witnesses spoke even stronger than the general tenour of the evidence? The hon. and gallant Colonel hoped to score a point by admitting that only 1 per cent. of all the officers of the Mercantile Service did what they ought not to do, and he inferred that what was right and possible in the case of officers was also applicable to and possible and probable for the average seaman. That was not so. The President of the Board of Trade would probably say there was much in the Bill with which he agreed and very little with which he disagreed, that the Bill hoped to secure a desirable object—but this was not the appointed time. The House had discussed fairly and temperately the question embodied in the Bill. Why could not the right hon. Gentleman satisfy the legitimate demand of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough? Why could not he do justice or seem to do justice to a body of men who, whatever might be their opinions upon other questions certainly thought the sailor and fireman had a right to be protected? The President of the Board of Trade would probably

  1441
  say the hon. Member ought to have waited until the Manning Committee had made their Report. He was told that the Manning Committee completed the taking of evidence 12 months ago, and that the Chairman was preparing his Report. How much longer was that Chairman going to take to make up his mind? If he managed a ship with half the delay he had taken to present his Report, he would have been wrecked every 24 hours of his life. The delay might be due to the fact that he was not a sailor or marine engineer, but an engineer in ship designs, and consequently wanted plenty of time. Why could not the President of the Board of Trade concede the reasonable demand of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and let the Bill be read a Second Time on the condition that the Committee Stage be postponed until the Manning Committee had presented their Report? Hon. Members could not get away from the fact that at the present moment sailors were being shipped at Cardiff at from £2 15s to £3 a mouth. On one occasion he himself had to spend 70 hours in a stoke-hole in consequence of the weakness of foreign and other sailors who were beguiled into signing articles. Many sailors altogether lacked the qualifications they ought to possess. Hon. Members had no right to compare in this matter the ordinary tramp steamer to our magnificent liners. On the latter, there were the very best skippers and officers, and generally the most steady and sober sailors, men of intelligence and fine physique. What they had to judge this Bill by was not by men to be found on board the Etruria but by men on board the average tramp steamer, who did not always get her cargo, whose food was bad and whose accommodation was worse, whose skipper was often driven out of his mind by his anxiety to make the ship pay. They had no right either by law or voluntary effort to allow the safety of men and ships to be jeopardised. He respectfully advised the President of the Board of Trade to signalise this Session by a generous support of this Bill, the operation of which would go a long way to rehabilitate the Mercantile Marine.
  MR. G. W. WOLFFsaid, the hon. Member for Battersea had stated there were 240,000 sailors and firemen and that 2,100 lives were lost annually.
  1442
  Anything that could be done to save the life of a single man ought to be done, but at the same time the loss was considerably under 1 per cent. He doubted whether railway travelling was as safe as that. He did not use that as an argument that nothing should be done to try to diminish loss of life, but he thought it was a point worth considering when it was said that the navigation of this country was carried on with recklessness. He understood the object of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough in bringing in the Bill was to diminish loss of of life, but judging from the speech of the hon. Member for Battersea, it was hoped to run up wages. The Bill was not quite so innocent as it seemed, and the object of its promoters was not altogether a philanthropic one. He saw nothing in the Measure about diminishing loss of life. The more he looked at the Bill the more strongly he was of opinion that it was, under the circumstances, unnecessary and impracticable. For instance, as to the point of taking steps to see that seamen who received certificates on board British ships should be able to speak the English language, that was already provided for by the Shipping Federation. [Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON: "It is not so."] And the suggestion that the Board of Trade should appoint Committees to carry out this object was futile. In fact, he thought there was very little in the Bill, from beginning to end, and he believed that even if it was passed it would not accomplish the objects at which it aimed. However, he approved the suggestion which had been made by the supporters of the Bill, that it should be read a Second Time, but on the understanding that the Committee stage should be postponed until after the Report of the Manning Committee was presented. There could be no doubt that that Report would have a very important bearing on the Bill, and in the circumstances he would advise the hon. and gallant Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs to accept the suggestion which had been offered, and to withdraw his Amendment to reject the Measure.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,) said, that everyone would sympathise with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough in bringing forward the Bill. He had introduced the Measure in a speech of great moderation, and he had

  1443
  no complaint whatever to make of any of the statements the hon. Member had made. ["Hear, hear!"] It would also be generally acknowledged, probably, that the hon. and gallant Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs moved his Amendment in a speech which greatly interested the House, and which did honour to the hon. and gallant Member himself—a speech of a character which might lead them to hope that he would take an active part in their Debates. [Cheers.] Of course, everyone would sympathise with the objects the hon. Member for Middlesbrough had in view in bringing in this Bill,—namely, the saving of life, the better manning of our merchant ships, and the displacement, if possible, of foreign seamen by British seamen in the Mercantile Marine. He was himself strongly in sympathy with the hon. Member in regard to each and all of those three objects, and he was sure the House would feel with him that if there was anything they could do in reason, fairness, and justice to promote them, they ought to do it. ["Hear, hear!"] But did the hon. Member really think that this Bill would bring about any one of those three objects? He was bound to say that he did not himself think it would do so. There was nothing in the Bill which would compel a shipmaster to rate men as able seamen. The hon. Member laid down certain conditions in regard to the engagement of able seamen and firemen; for instance, that no shipmaster should engage men as able seamen who were not possessed of the qualifications of four years' service, and of 12 months' service in the case of firemen. But what was there in the Bill to prevent a man engaging men to do the duty of seamen and not calling them able seamen?
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid he anticipated that one of the conditions the Manning Committee would lay down in their Report was that so many able seamen should be carried in a ship.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that was a complete contradiction of the position the hon. Member had taken up in bringing forward the Bill. If he relied on any of the recommendations of the Committee, which had not yet reported, why did he not wait until the Report of that Committee was presented. He maintained that until that Committee had presented their Report, and until the
  1444
  recommendations of that Report were passed into law by Act of Parliament, the Bill, though it were passed into law, would be inoperative. He understood that the hon. Member made no complaint at all in respect to the best class of shipowners, and against the great Line Companies, but that he intended the Bill to apply mainly to that inferior class of shipowner and shipmaster connected with what were called "tramp" vessels or steamers. ["Hear, hear!"] But there were some, even of this class to which the Bill would not apply, and therefore it must not be assumed that the accusations which had been made in this matter applied to all of even the inferior class of cargo-carrying vessels. ["Hear, hear!"] But as regarded the lower class of shipowner or master, did the hon. Member think that that class of man would hesitate for a moment to resort to some means of evading the conditions of the Bill? What was there in the Bill to hinder such men from engaging men as seamen, and, instead of rating them as able seamen, calling them deck hands, or by some other name? He therefore maintained that the Bill, if passed, must be inoperative until the Manning Committee reported, and until legal effect was given to their recommendations. In those circumstances he felt much inclined to suggest that the Second Reading should be postponed, but probably it was not necessary to take so extreme a step as that. The motives of the hon. Member were excellent, but the hon. and gallant Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs had laid down the conditions under which it was wise to propose legislation on this matter. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member, for it was a great mistake to propose legislation which would be inoperative unless certain conditions were fulfilled. With regard to the employment of foreign seamen, again, there was nothing in the Bill, if it were passed the next day, that would prevent any number of foreigners being engaged under conditions such as he had named. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough contended that foreigners engaged in the British Mercantile Service ought to undergo an examination to prove that they knew English. In illustration of this he gave the case of the man on board the Netley Abbey who, he stated, in consequence of not knowing English,

  1445
  made a wrong turn of the wheel, and thus endangered the ship. The hon. and gallant Member for Kilmarnock had stated that this man, whose wrong turn of the wheel was said to have contributed to the accident, did understand English. The information of the Board of Trade was that the man had a very good knowledge indeed of the English language; that an Englishman was standing near, saw the man make the wrong turn of the wheel, and allowed him to do so. Therefore, it was an open point whether the Englishman was not as much, or more, to blame than the foreigner in charge of the wheel. At any rate, if it were possible to ensure that all the men employed on board ships should be capable men who understood their work, it would be in the interests of the community at large, and especially of those on board ships; and certainly, so far as the Board of Trade were concerned, nothing could be more desirable from their point of view. ["Hear, hear!"] Under those circumstances, and having regard to the suggestion that no further progress should be made with the Bill until the Manning Committee had reported, he would ask his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs not to proceed with his opposition, and when the Manning Committee had reported it would be for the Government to consider whether they would themselves take in hand legislation for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations made. [Cheers.]
  COLONEL DENNYsaid that, after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR C. DILKEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman, had asked the hon. Member for Middlesbrough why he had not waited to introduce the Bill until the Manning Committee had reported. Some time ago, before he had any idea of the introduction of this Bill, he put down a question on the Notice Paper for next Monday, asking the right hon. Gentleman why the Committee had not reported. ["Hear, hear!"] The Committee had been sitting for nearly two years, and had taken an immense quantity of evidence, which had been com-
  1446
  piled into an enormous volume, and that evidence was nominally confidential, but in fact had been accessible to every Member of the House. The Committee had not yet reported. It seemed to him that that was a discreditable state of things, and when the hon. Member for Battersea spoke as though it ought not to be alluded to in this House, all he could say was that there was no such etiquette in existence. They were not allowed in that House to allude to Reports of their own Committees until they had reported to the House. This was not a House of Commons Committee. It was a Departmental Committee, as to which there was no such etiquette. It was of the highest national importance that it should be known at the earliest possible moment. A mass of evidence of great importance to the country had been collected, and it ought to be before the House; and it seemed to him that if the Committee were not ready to report, at all events they ought to follow the usual course and report the evidence to the House, so that they might form their own opinion upon it. The main point of this Bill was really that it aimed the first blow at the increasing predominance of the foreign element in the British Merchant Navy. The President of the Board of Trade said that he agreed in that view, but that the provisions of the Bill would not secure it. He was one of those who were strongly and most bitterly opposed to all proposals to interfere with general alien immigration; but there was a case for preventing the complete manning of the British Merchant Navy by foreign sailors that was entirely apart from and independent of the general question of alien immigration. There was the position of this country in time of war. To have British ships manned all by foreign officers and foreign men was to put themselves in a position in time of war in which the country ought not to stand. The foreign element in the British Navy was increasing every day. It was already far larger than was generally supposed—the mere percentage figures were not sufficient—and for military reasons, quite apart from trade grounds and the safety of the ships, there was a necessity for interference in this matter at a very early date. He did not wish to oppress the British shipowner. Shipowners

  1447
  complained, and yet British shipping was continually increasing. They got from year to year a larger and larger proportion of the shipping of the world; but their ships were being increasingly manned by foreign crews. That was a state of things they would all wish should cease to exist. If, for national reasons, they imposed new burdens on shipowners, they ought to search about and see if they could not help them in other ways. He believed the "other ways" in which they could help them was by national assistance in the apprenticeship of seamen. There was a great deal to be done in that respect. They would be enabled to limit, as they must limit, the employment of foreign sailors in the British Merchant Navy, and be doing something to help the shipowner, by taking English apprentices at an early age into his service and training them for the sea. He thought his hon. Friend deserved well of the House for having forced this matter upon its attention.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2a, and committed for Friday, 27th March.

  RULE OF THE ROAD AT SEA.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the objections which have been raised to the adoption by Order in Council of Rule 15 of the revised International Regulations for preventing Collisions at Sea, dealing with Sound Signals in Fog, as suggested by the Washington Conference, and considered by the Maritime Powers (including any objections which may be taken to that Rule having regard to the Sound Signals prescribed by Rule 28).
  Mr. Attorney-General, Sir George Baden-Powell, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Mr. Blake, Mr. Cayzer, Sir Francis Evans, Admiral Field, Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald, Mr. Robert Price, Sir Robert Reid, Mr. Parker Smith, and Mr. Havelock Wilson were accordingly nominated Members of the said Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, Papers and Records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Sir William Walrond.)

  FOOD PRODUCTS ADULTERATION.
  The Select Committee on Food Products Adulterations was nominated of—Captain Bagot, Mr. Bolitho, Mr. Causton, Mr. Channing, Mr. Colston, Mr. Fry, Mr. Jeffreys, Mr. Kearley, Mr. Kilbride, Mr. Lambert, Sir John Leng, Mr. Patrick Aloysius M'Hugh, Mr. Newdigate, Mr. Nicol, Mr. Herbert Roberts, Mr. T. W. Russell, Sir Mark Stewart, Mr. Willox, and Mr. Yerburgh—(Sir William Walrond.)

  ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND.
  Ordered, That Mr. Hare be discharged from the Select Committee on Royal Patriotic Fund.
  Ordered, That Colonel Lockwood be added to the Committee.—(Sir William Walrond.)

  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Military Lands Act, 1892, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brodrick and Mr. Powell-Williams; presented accordingly, and read 1a; to be read 2a upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 119.]
  NEW WRIT.
  For the County of Louth (Southern Division)—v. Dr. Daniel Ambrose, deceased.—(Captain Donelan.)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR C. DILKEasked, what would be the business that would be taken on Monday?
  MR. HANBURYreplied, that the Navy Estimates would be the first Order of the day, Naval Works the second, then the Light Railways and other Bills would be put down, and several Irish Bills would be introduced.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Ten o'clock till Monday next.