Commons Sitting of 30 July 1896

CIVIL SERVICE CERTIFICATES.
Return [presented 28th April] to be printed.—[No. 320.]
CIVIL SERVICE CERTIFICATES.

  DISTRESS FROM WANT OF EMPLOYMENT.
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 321.]

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Copy ordered, "of Treasury Minute, dated 23rd day of July 1896, granting a retiring allowance to Mr. Alfred Pike, Superintendent of County Courts, Treasury."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 322.]

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION.]
Committee to consider of authorising the remission of a debt due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to grant moneys for the purpose of certain Local Loans, and for other purposes relating to Local Loans (Queen's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—(Sir John Gorst.)
QUESTIONS.

  FRANCO-CONGOLESE AGREEMENT.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there could be laid before Parliament the Agreement of the 11th August last between France and the Congo State, under which M. Listard,
  1022
  as Commissary of the Republic, is now organising the government of territories lying to the west of the district leased by Great Britain to the Sovereign of the Congo State and retained by him, and in the immediate neighbourhood of the district also leased by Great Britain to him at the same time, and renounced by him in an agreement with France?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY or STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CUEZOS,): The Agreement referred to is dated August 16, 1894, not 1895, as the Question implies, ft is to found on page 1002, Volume IL, of "The Map of Africa by Treaty," of which there is a copy in the House of Commons Library.

  HYDE PARK (ROTTEN ROW).
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, with a view to afford more room to riders of horses, he will consider what steps could be taken to restore to them the privilege which some years ago they possessed of riding on a prolongation of Rotten Row to the westward; and, whether he would consider if he could make arrangements whereby the ride in Rotten Row might be prolonged into and round Kensington Gardens?
  COLONEL WYNDIIAM MURRAY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the difficulty experienced by pedestrians in crossing Rotten Row in the season, owing to its crowded state by riders, he will consider the possibility of extending the ride into Kensington Gardens, in order to relieve the Row and so give more accommodation to foot passengers?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I have carefully considered the suggestions contained in the Questions of my hon. Friends the Members for Lynn Regis and Bath. The proposal, besides involving a very large expenditure, would not, I think, command such general approval as would warrant interference with the present uses of Kensington Gardens. I regret, therefore, that I cannot entertain the suggestions.

  MADRAS INFANTRY REGIMENTS.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the under officering of Madras infantry regiments, and whether he is aware that it has gone to such an extent that lately, for a brigade parade, the commanding officer had only available three officers for two regiments; whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the cause of the constant depletion of Madras regiments by transfer of officers, and its effects on the efficiency and morale of the corps, and the best way of providing a remedy; and, whether any representations have been made to the Indian Government by commanding officers on this subject; and what, if any, explanations have been offered or steps taken in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): I have heard nothing of the statements to which my hon. Friend's Question relates, but I will inquire of the Government of India.

  EAST LONDON WATER COMPANY.
  MR. W. R. BOUSFIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board—(1) whether he can state the hours of the day during and between which the restricted supply now given by the East London Water Company is furnished in the various portions of the district supplied by the Company; (2) whether he is aware that during the limited time for which such restricted supply is furnished the pressure of the water is so small that a sufficient supply for sanitary purposes cannot be obtained; (3) whether he is aware that the cisterns and other fittings in the district of the Company are only adapted to a constant supply, and that the storage capacity of the cisterns is so small that practically no supply of water is available for sanitary purposes during a large part of the time for which the water is turned off; and (4) whether, having regard to the occurrence of these insanitary conditions due to deficient water supply in two successive years, the Local Government Board is prepared to recommend any means for preventing the recurrence of such conditions?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): I am informed by the East London Company that the hours of turning on the water vary in the different streets throughout the district, but that in each street the water is supplied at the same time from day to day. The general rule is that the water is turned on as nearly as possible, for three hours in the morning and again for three hours later in the day. In some cases there are additional times of service. With respect to the second question, it is stated by the Company that the pressure at the works is higher than it has ever been before, and that the automatic diagrams of pressure traced at various points show a good and sufficient force. Further, that if any deficient pressure exists it can only occur where there is great waste in any particular street, and this must be due to the fact that all the taps, or the majority of them are left running at one time. No complaints, it is stated, have been made to the Company in this matter. With respect to the third question, a very large proportion of the dwellings in the district supplied by the Company have no proper storage cisterns, and where there are no such cisterns it is the case that there is no supply of water available for sanitary purposes during a large portion of the time when the water is turned off except waste water and such supply as may be provided by storage. The best recommendation I think that I can make to prevent a recurrence of this calamity is the speedy completion of the additional works which were contemplated by the Company in 1893, but which were arrested at that time by the action of Parliament.
  MR. HARRY SAMUEL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is aware that the customers of the East London Water Company who pay for the water they consume, as registered by meter, have had and still have an abundant supply whereas those who pay by rate and it impossible to obtain sufficient for ordinary domestic purposes; and whether he can take any steps in the matter?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am informed by the East London Water Works Company that there is no foundation for the suggestion in the Question of my hon. Friend. The Company state that the meter supplies from the "service mains" are treated precisely in the same way as the supply upon fixed rates, and are subject to the same restrictions as to hours of supply. Both meter services and any others on the leading or fire mains, which are constantly charged, have necessarily an uninterrupted service.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is aware that there is no improvement in the supply of water to the inhabitants of East London by the East London Water Company, that illness is becoming rife in the poorer districts, and that proper Hushing of the sewers is urgently needed; and, whether he can state why the East London Company does not obtain a supply of water from the New River Company?
  MR. CHAPLIN: In reply to a telegram addressed to the Company after seeing the hon. Member's Question this morning, I am informed that no restrictions have been placed upon the vestries as regards the supply of water for the flushing of the sewers, that as regards the New River no answer has yet been received to the second application of the East London Company, and that they have no knowledge of any increased sickness due to the restricted supply of water. I may add that I have no information to that effect either.
  COLONEL LOCK WOODasked whether it was not a fact that the company were prepared to fix additional standpipes whenever and wherever required by the local authorities?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The company have signified their perfect readiness to do so wherever required.

  NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION (AMMUNITION).
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the attention of Lord Lansdowne and the Commander-in-Chief has been directed to the
  1026
  complaints made of the ammunition supplied to the National Rifle Association at Bisley, and what steps have been taken to ascertain if they are well founded, and, in such case, on what officer or officers the responsibility rests to prevent like defective cartridges being sent to Her Majesty's Forces abroad for use against the Queen's enemies?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): This Question has already been brought before us. Reports of defective ammunition at Bisley have been received, and samples are now being examined. The matter will be fully investigated.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will a Court of Inquiry be appointed?
  MR. BRODRICK: I think not. It is the business of the Inspector General of Ordnance to investigate all questions connected with ammunition, and this matter will come before him.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. D. MACALEESEI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether the seven sergeants and three acting sergeants of constabulary, who in 1892 were drafted into the Belfast force, have been since promoted to be sergeants and attached permanently to the strength of the city force, although the Inspector General assured the City Commissioner that the appointment of those 10 sergeants would in no way interfere with the ordinary promotion of senior men in Belfast; (2) where are those ten sergeants now doing duty; and (3), has the Inspector General invited constables to volunteer from the Belfast force for service in county Mayo, promising that the promotion of those who volunteered would be favourably considered?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): In April, 1893, not 1892, 50 men were drafted into Belfast as a reserve force, and of these seven were sergeants and three acting sergeants. Two of the acting sergeants were subsequently withdrawn and replaced by constables. In May 1894, the free or permanent force of the city was increased by 100 men, and the reserve force of 50 men was absorbed into the permanent

  1027
  force. Consequent on this increase the aggregate strength of sergeants and acting sergeants was raised by nine, and a number of promotions were made accordingly, the men promoted being all senior constables with lengthened previous service in Belfast, and not men only recently drafted into Belfast. The men referred to in the second paragraph are still serving in Belfast with the exception of the two acting sergeants who, I have stated, were withdrawn. Application having been made to the Inspector General for some senior constables for service in Mayo, he offered to transfer any good senior men of that rank who wished for the change, but only one constable of the Belfast force has volunteered in response to the offer.

  FIRE IN PARCEL POST VAN.
  MR. J. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, with reference to the fire which took place near Mount Pleasant Station in the parcel post van of the 7.30 p.m. mail train from Dublin to Belfast about a month ago, whether he is aware that some of the young men who assisted in saving mails were badly burned; and, whether, considering the skill, fearlessness, and activity shown by the engine driver and these young men, to whose efforts the safety of the mails on that occasion was due, he will, in the interest of the public service, consider the desirability of making some compensation to them?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The Postmaster General is not aware that any person who assisted in saving the mails on this occasion was himself burned, but the railway company have represented that the clothes of one of the men were damaged. There is no reason to think that the Post Office is in any way responsible for the fire, but the Postmaster General is considering whether he should not make some gratuity to the persons who assisted in saving the mails.

  PATTERN POST.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Post-
  1028
  master General, whether he is aware that large numbers of poor persons, such as cultivators of gardens and allotments, having fruit, dairy produce, or other articles to dispose of, are debarred from using the pattern or sample post because they do not come within the definition of traders; and, whether he will consider the expediency of so amending the regulations on the subject, that the benefit of the pattern or sample post may be extended to such persons?
  MR. HANBUBY: The Postmaster General is not aware that the persons referred to by the hon. Member are prevented on the ground of not being traders from using the pattern or sample post. As a matter of fact the sample post is open to persons engaged in any kind of business, whether agricultural or commercial, but being a sample post it is, of course, intended solely for bonâ fide patterns and samples, and cannot by the nature of the case be used for the execution of orders, which is the apparent object of the Question. The limit of weight is 8 ozs., which does not admit of much agricultural produce being sent. The Postmaster General is not prepared to modify the regulations on the subject of the sample post.

  ST. MATTHEW'S SCHOOL, PONDER'S END.
  MR. J. H. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, with regard to the dismissal of the mistress of the Bonder's End St. Matthew's School, (1) if, in view of the report of Her Majesty's Inspector that alterations in the registers had he considered been made to justify a statement against the mistress, he proposes to take steps to discover the real offender; and (2) if he can see his way to do anything to prevent the dismissal of the mistress in question, and thus to vindicate her character against an allegation of fraudulent registration which, in the words of Her Majesty's Inspector's Report, cannot be sustained against her?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): On further examination of the register, the Inspector has withdrawn the statement referred to in the first paragraph of the Question. He

  1029
  has been directed to forward the registers to the Education Department, where they will be inspected. A further Report will be sent to the Managers after the inspection of the registers. The Committee of Council have no power to prevent the dismissal of the mistress in question.

  LEE-METFORD RIFLE.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that in shooting with the Lee-Metford rifle (magazine attached) the cartridges usually jam in blank firing, and occasionally in ball practice, rendering the rifle useless; and whether he would consider the possibility of modifying the magazine and breech action to obviate this danger?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL - WILLIAMS,): No complaints of ball cartridge jamming have been received since the present spring was introduced, more than four years ago. Blank cartridge is not intended to be passed through the magazine of the Lee-Metford Rifle, as the absence of the bullet renders the cartridge an imperfect fit.

  EUROPEAN TROOPS (INDIA).
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the fact, as stated by the Sanitary Commissioner to the Government of India in his Report for 1894, that 3,062 men are constantly ineffective from venereal disease, and how on an emergency the Government would propose to replace them in the ranks?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have observed with regret the reported increase in the average number of European troops disabled at one time from venereal disease. I am not aware of any means by which they could be replaced on an emergency.

  MADRAS CITY CIVIL COURT.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Home authorities have put pressure on the
  1030
  Government of Madras to raise the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court from Rs.2,500 to Rs.5,000; whether he is aware that the Madras Government state that this extension of jurisdiction is open to objections, and that the High Court was itself equally divided in opinion on the merits of the question; whether he is also aware that the chamber of commerce, and other commercial and legal opinion, is opposed to the change; and, if so, whether the said authorities purpose still to urge the change?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: It is true that, after full consideration of the views expressed by the Government of Madras and by the chambers of commerce, I requested the Government of Madras, in a Dispatch dated 19th March 1896, to take an opportunity of raising the jurisdiction of the City Court to Rs.5,000, unless they saw any strong reason to the contrary. To this Dispatch I have as yet received no reply.

  NIGER COAST PROTECTORATE.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—(1) what was the cost of the s.s. Ivy to the Niger Coast Protectorate; (2) whether he can state the estimate of her upkeep for the current year; (3) whether it is the case that she cannot cross the bar of the Qua I be river, and, except during the rainy season, she cannot navigate the Niger or Cross rivers; (4) whether her bottom is only wood sheathed in copper, from which fact she is likely to suffer by the least grounding, causing exposure of her timbers to the action of worms; and, (5) whether there is any place on the West Coast of Africa where such injuries if caused could be attended to?
  MR. CURZON: The total cost of the Ivy, everything included, was £54,000. The estimate of up-keep, for the current year insurance, repairs, coals, officers and crew included is £8,500. The statements in the third and fourth paragraphs are substantially correct, but the ship was built for the sea, and not for the river work of the Protectorate; and the copper sheathing was specially designed for the work that she has to do. The last paragraph could better be answered by the Admiralty than by the Foreign Office.

  ROAD REPAIR (COUNTY MONAGHAN.)
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) is he aware that a presentment for the making of 755 perches of a new road at Cavancreevy, between Ballybay and Middletown, promoted and supported by a large number of farmers, was rejected at the Road Sessions held at Castleblayney on 11th May last, the cost to be £160; and that a presentment to repair the existing road where it leads through the townlands of Alkil, Drum-muck, Drumnahinsion, Groves Lower and Groves Upper, was also rejected, the cost to be £60; (2) is he aware that this road is dangerous and impassable in winter, and that it is impossible to get produce out to market over it till the late spring; and, (3) whether, seeing that the presentments in both these cases were signed by two justices of the peace, two medical doctors, one of whom is medical officer of the Monaghan Union and two clergymen, the Catholic Parish Priest and the Protestant Rector, he will use his authority to see that this road is repaired?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts appear to be stated with substantial accuracy, so I am informed, though I have no information regarding the statements in the second paragraph. With regard to the request at the end of the Question, the hon. Member must doubtless be aware that there is no power or authority resident in me to interfere in this matter, as the construction or repair of roads is vested by law in the Local Authorities. I may, however, point out that where two successive Presentment Sessions have refused to approve an application for a public work it is competent to the persons who made application for such work, under Section 18 of the Grand Jury Act of 1836, to present a Memorial to the Judge of Assize who is empowered to refer the matter to an ordinary jury, and, should their finding be favourable, to direct the Grand Jury to consider the presentment.

  LOUGH FOYLE ETSHERTES.
  MR. THOMAS B. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether his attention has been called to the complaints of the fishermen in
  1032
  Lough Foyle as to the injury done by the dredge-boat of the Derry Port and Harbour Board to the oyster-beds in the Lough by depositing mud inside the Lough; (2) whether the Fishery Board, acting on a memorial of the fishermen, recently held an Inquiry into the matter, at which it was proved that one valuable oyster-bed had been entirely destroyed and another partially so in the manner mentioned, and also that the mud could be deposited outside the Lough at comparitively slight extra expense; (3) what the result of the Inquiry was, and, (4) whether, failing action by the Fishery Board, any action will be taken by the Government to save this valuable local industry from destruction?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts are generally as stated in the first and second paragraph, except that in regard to the discharge of mud it was proved at the Inquiry, on behalf of the Derry Port and Harbour Commissioners, that their system was adopted on the advice of eminent engineers who had specially considered this question. Were the dredger to discharge the mud at the next available point the additional time occupied by her voyages would be so great as to necessitate the purchase of a second dredger at a cost of £20,000. Under these circumstances, and having regard to the smallness of the oyster fishing industry affected, the value of which is less than £100 a year, the inspectors of fisheries declined to interfere with the navigation of this important port.

  BIRR MILITARY BARRACKS.
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the military authorities in Ireland to discontinue the use of the Birr military barracks as a headquarters of a regiment, meaning a loss to the locality of an expenditure there of nearly £40,000 a year; whether he is aware that these barracks are about the largest in Ireland, and were originally built to hold two full regiments; that the situation is excellent, and the health record above the average; that Birr is a first class recruiting district, and possesses within two miles a range suit-for the new rifle, and moreover it is only 65 miles from the Curragh Camp by rail

  1033
  and 50 by road; and, whether, in view of these circumstances, he will be prepared to advise that the military authorities should make no change in the existing arrangements?
  MR. BRODRICK: The removal of the headquarters of a battalion from Birr was decided in 1890 as a measure conducing to the concentration and efficiency of the Army; and the Secretary of State, while regretting any local inconvenience which may be occasioned, cannot hold out any hope of the decision being changed.

  SALE OF DRINK (COUNTY DOWN).
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTONI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a Newry magistrate, Mr. Todd, issued a licence to a Newry man to sell intoxicating drinks, on 14th July, at Scarva, near Banbridge, county Down, on the occasion of the usual demonstration there, and that, although the promoters of the meeting were anxious to prevent the sale of such drink, and the police warned the holder of such licence not to sell, he persisted in doing so; and, whether a prosecution will be instituted against the drink seller and the conduct of the magistrate referred to the consideration of the Lord Chancellor?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The action of the magistrate was irregular in signing a consent for a licence to sell at a place outside the Pettty Sessions district in which he usually acted, but as there is no proof that the publican acted in bad faith a prosecution cannot, on the authority of an English case, be sustained. The attention of the Lord Chancellor will be directed to the action of the magistrate.

  MATABELELAND (ARMS AND AMMUNITION).
  MR. HUBERT BUNCOMBE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any reason to suppose that the ammunition used by the warriors of the Matabele has been supplied to them
  1034
  by British subjects or by subjects of any Foreign Power; if not, by whom it was supplied; and whether any person supplying arms or ammunition to the enemy would be liable to summary execution, as in the case of Mr. Stokes?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THECOLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Inquiries are being made on the spot as to how the rebels have obtained their supplies of arms and ammunition, but no information has yet reached me which would be worth communicating to the House. If any person is shown to have supplied them with arms and ammunition since they broke into rebellion, he will be dealt according to the facts and the law applicable to his case.
  MR. H. C. STEPHENS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can say if the description of the killing of the M'Limo is substantially true; and, if so, in order to avoid provoking reprisals, he will use his influence so that in the future restraint shall be exercised to prevent such incidents. The description to which I refer was in the Daily Graphic of yesterday?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not know before to what description the hon. Member alluded. The newspaper descriptions which I have seen tally generally with the official report, which is not of a character to lead me to think that there is any ground for my interference. I may add that there is still some uncertainty as to whether this gentleman has been killed. [Laughter.]

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he could state to the House how much of the £500 allotted during 1895–6 under Clause 4 of the Civil Service Estimates, Vote 2, Subhead F 9, was spent; and, how much of the £400 allotted under the same Vote for 1896–7 has been already expended?
  SIR J. GORST: £433 5s. 2d. £398 17s. 10d. has been actually spent, and liabilities to a further amount of about.£100 have been incurred?

  COUNTY COURT JUDGESHIP (COUNTY DOWN).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is a vacancy for the County Court Judgeship of County Down, and if so, whether the appointment has been given, or is intended to be given, to Mr. Walter Craig, who was a Parliamentary candidate for County Down at the last General Election, and who is now the selected Unionist candidate for the same constituency for the next Parliamentary Election?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have received no notification of a vacancy in the office of County Court Judge for Down.

  GRAND JURY (COUNTY KILKENNY).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that the matter of the Grand Jury of the county Kilkenny having given away a printing contract for seven years without having advertised for tenders, was brought before the last Judge of Assize, Mr. Justice Johnston, by counsel on behalf of certain cesspayers, and that his Lordship decided that he could not allow the case to be gone into because the contract was fiated by the Lord Chief Justice at the previous Spring Assizes; whether he will inquire if the Lord Chief Justice was fully informed of the illegal way the contract was made, without advertising for tenders, by the Kilkenny County Grand Jury, before he fiated the presentment; and, whether there is any remedy by which the county cesspayers can undo the arrangement which binds them for seven years to pay for a contract at prices which they believe unjust, fixed without their knowledge or consent, and without the economic safeguard of public advertisement for public tender?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): The printing contract for the county Kilkenny was made by the Grand Jury at the Spring Assizes, 1896, for the sum of £300 per annum for seven years, it being the lowest of two tenders put in. The amount is practically the same as that contracted for for many years back. The effect of advertising
  1036
  over the whole of Ireland on a previous occasion failed to bring in tenders as low as this. The presentments were fiated in open Court in the usual public manner, and it was open to any cesspayer then to object and traverse the presentment, but no objection having been made, the Lord Chief Justice fiated the presentment. The whole of the facts were laid before Mr. Justice Johnston at the Summer Assizes, 1896, and he refused to hear the traverse, stating that he was very doubtful if an appeal to the Queen's Bench would be successful. On the 13th April last, the hon. Member was informed, in reply to a question put by him on that date, that there was some doubt, owing to a decision delivered many years ago, whether Grand Juries are bound to advertise for tenders for printing. They are undoubtedly bound to do so in the case of all other contracts. I have several times stated to the House, in reply to the questions of hon. Members that the Government have no control over or responsibility for the action of the Grand Jury in such matters.

  BELFAST WORKHOUSE (DEATH OF INMATE).
  MR. S. YOUNG: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Down (MR. MCCAETAN), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the inquest on the body of Elizabeth Monaghan, who died in the lunatic department of Belfast Workhouse on the 18th inst.; whether he is aware that the father of the deceased proved at the inquest that in 1891, when the child was only ten years old, being of sound mind but subject to epileptic fits, she was on the line of a relieving officer sent to the workhouse, and as an epileptic she was sent to the lunatic department; that there were no signs of insanity for two years after her admission to the lunatic department, and then her mind gave way; that the workhouse doctor swore there was no notice that she was insane, and that it was possible for lunatics who were not epileptic to get into the room where this girl was; and that the verdict of the jury condemned the practice of sending a simple epileptic into the lunatic ward, and held that such treatment contributed to her death; and

  1037
  whether he will have full inquiry made into this ease, and also into the treatment of epileptics generally in workhouses in Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have received reports in reference to the inquest on the body of this girl, but as they do not afford a perfectly clear account of the system of treatment pursued of patients suffering from epilepsy in the Belfast Workhouse, I have considered it desirable to make some further inquiries into the matter, and when the result of these further inquiries is before me I will consider the question of investigating the treatment of epileptics generally in Workhouses in Ireland.

  FAIR RENT APPLICATION (IRELAND).
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Waterford (Mr. J. J. SHEE), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) who is responsible for the assigning of lay Assistant Commissioners to hear applications to fix fair rents under the Laud Law (Ireland) Acts; (2) by what rules such applications are assigned for hearing by the lay Assistant Commissioners; (3) whether, in respect of applications heard during the months of September, October, November, and December 1895, two lay Assistant Commissioners named Messrs. W. Walpole and C. R. Butler had assigned for hearing by them with a legal Assistant Commissioner a larger number of cases than any other two lay Assistant Commissioners, and whether the aggregate of the old rents dealt with by them was,£3,092 15s. 3d, and the reduction on same amounted to 19·49 per cent; (4) whether during the same period the aggregates of the old rents dealt with by the other sets of lay Assistant Commissioners were respectively,£2,037 3s. 1d., £1,913 7s., £1,571 12s. 7d., £7980s. f. d., and £599 14s. 7d., on which the reductions made were respectively 22·43 per cent., 22·79 per cent., 26·53 per cent., 22·93 per cent., and 31·1 per cent.; (5) is there any explanation of the difference between the percentage of reduction made by the several sets of lay Assistant Commissioners; and (6) whether the same state of facts applies to the months
  1038
  of January and February this year in respect of the cases heard during these months?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As to the first two paragraphs, the system followed is explained in the appendix to the Report of the Select Committee on Land Acts. The figures quoted in the third and fourth paragraphs appear to be taken from the Parliamentary Return of judicial rents fixed in the period mentioned, but the inference attempted to be drawn in the third paragraph is not correct, inasmuch as that Return merely contains particulars of cases in which the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners were notified to the Land Commission and does not show the number of cases actually referred to the Sub-Commissioners in the same period. As a matter of fact a larger number of cases were sent in this period to other Sub-Commissioners than to those named in the third paragraph. It is not the fact, as implied in the fourth paragraph, that the Assistant Commissioners named therein fixed the judicial rents in question at a higher aggregate amount than any other set of Assistant Commissioners employed during the same period. As to the last two paragraphs, the rents referred to were fixed by the Assistant Commissioners after having heard the evidence that was offered to them by the parties, and after inspecting the holdings. Their orders were made in a judicial capacity, and if the parties were dissatisfied an appeal lay to the Land Commission.

  RULE OF ROAD AT SEA.
  MR. A. F. WARR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the operation of the revised Regulations for preventing collisions at sea, referred to in the notice published in the London Gazette of 14th July 1896, will be delayed until it has been ascertained that the principal foreign maritime nations are prepared to adopt similar Regulations, so as to avoid the confusion and danger which would result from ships of different nationalities approaching one another in such manner as to avoid risk of collision not being bound by the same regulations.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The principal foreign maritime nations agreed to the Regulations in question before Rule 15, dealing with fog signals, was modified in order to meet the views of the English shipowners. I have no reason whatever for supposing that they will refuse to agree to those modifications, or to put in force the Rules on the 1st July 1897, when they will become operative in this country.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade—(1) whether he will lay on the Table of the House the terms of the draft Order in Council relative to the regulations for preventing collisions at sea, which the London Gazette of 14th July announces, will be submitted to Her Majesty in Council after forty days from the 14th July; (2) whether this draft Order has been submitted to and approved by the Admiralty; (3) whether the new Regulations to be imposed by the draft Order have been submitted to the Governments of any foreign countries; and, if so, which of such Governments have approved and which have disapproved of them; (4) whether he has received a copy of the protest against the proposed new Rules signed by the representatives at New York of the great steamship lines, including the Cunard, the White Star, and the North German Lloyd lines; and (5) whether he proposes to afford to shipowners and ship's officers in general or this House any opportunity of expressing an opinion on the proposed new Regulations before they are imposed on the mercantile marine by Order in Council?
  MR. RITCHIE: I will consult the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council with regard to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question. As at present advised, I see no objection to laying on the Table the Regulations in question, which will be embodied in the Order in Council to be submitted to Her Majesty. These Regulations have received the concurrence of the Admiralty. They were agreed to by foreign Governments with the exception of the amendment to Article XV., in respect to which we have no reason to believe that there will be any disagreement with the material concessions which have been
  1040
  made to British shipowners. The answer to the fourth paragraph is in the negative, and, as regards the fifth, the fullest opportunity has been given to shipowners and ships' officers for expressing their opinion on the Regulations, and Article XV. is now framed in order to meet as far as possible the views expressed by those persons.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the German Government or the Norwegian Government have agreed to these regulations?
  MR. RITCHIE: The question was not put to foreign Governments in the first instance, but to the United States by England. We have now communicated the regulations to all foreign Governments, Germany included, and we have no reason to doubt they will agree.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then, as a matter of fact, only the United States have agreed to adopt them?
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: And no other Government?
  MR. RITCHIE: Before communicating with other Governments, we considered it necessary to obtain the assent of the United States. It was necessary that these Rules should be settled, and the United States Government required to pass a law through Congress to give effect to them. After having obtained their assent, we communicated with foreign Governments.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I will only ask further whether this House will be allowed an opportunity of discussing these Rules?
  Mr. RITCHIE: No, Sir, I believe it is not usual, and there will be no opportunity of doing so, so far as I know.

  DIPHTHERIA ANTITOXIC SERUMS.
  MR. HARRY SAMUELS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a Report of the Special Commission on the Relative Strengths of Diphtheria Antitoxic Serums, published in The Lancet of July 18th, 1896, in which it is shown that the antitoxic serums now in the market in this country vary greatly in

  1041
  strength; whether he is aware that the Government in Germany have instituted a State laboratory, of which Professor Ehrlich is now the head, for the express purpose of testing the antitoxins produced by manufacturers and certifying the strength of serum contained in each bottle, which is then sent out bearing the Government stamp and seal; and, whether, with regard to the conclusions of The Lancet Commissioners, he is prepared to take steps similar to those already taken in Germany to insure that the strength of the antitoxic serums employed in this country shall be maintained at a uniform standard?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am aware that, according to the Report referred to, the antitoxic serums sold in this country vary much in strength, and the statement in the Question as to the action taken in Germany is, I believe, correct. The powers vested in the Local Government Board have reference to prevention of disease in connection with sanitary administration and not the cure of disease, and they, therefore, are not empowered to control the sale of any remedy for the treatment of disease. It appears to me that there would be a considerable difficulty in the Government undertaking to control the purity or strength of one particular remedy, as suggested. The Sale of Food and Drugs Acts are intended to provide a remedy for the sale of drugs to the prejudice of the purchaser.

  STATISTICS OF COTTON, WOOLLEN, AND IRON TRADES.
  MR. KENYON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will get for the House statistics as to rates of wages paid and hours worked in the cotton, woollen, and iron (engineering and machine making) trades in France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Russia, and Japan?
  MR. CURZON: I shall have much pleasure in obtaining the latest information on the subject from the countries named. The reports which Her Majesty's representatives will be instructed to make will be laid on the Table when received.

  BOMBAY AND MADRAS COTTON TRADE.
  MR. KENYON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will get for the House statistics as to the rates of wages paid and hours worked in the cotton trade in Bombay and Madras?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Wages in India are usually paid by the piece, and vary according to the season of the year. The fullest information that I possess on this subject, and as to the hours of labour (which is limited by law), is contained in the Factory Reports for Bombay and Madras, copies of which I shall be happy to supply to my hon. Friend, if he wishes it.

  TRANSVAAL RAID.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the character of the offences for which Dr. Jameson and his companions were convicted, he will consider the advisability of having them treated in prison as misdemeanants of the first class, so that they may be allowed the same privileges as to wearing their own clothes, dietary, literature, and visits, as was granted to Colonel Rhodes and other prisoners convicted of similar offences when imprisoned in Pretoria by the Government of the Transvaal Republic?
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the character of the offence of which Dr. Jameson and his coadjutors have been convicted, and the absence of any criminal motive in the proceedings that led to their conviction, he will order that during the period of their detention they be treated as political prisoners?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THEHOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): Under the Prison Act of 1865, it is the sentencing Court alone which has power to order that a person convicted of misdemeanour, and not sentenced to hard labour, should be treated as a first-class misdemeanant. In this case the Court decided to make no such order, and the prisoners are being treated in the ordinary way

  1043
  by law. The Secretary of State has no legal power whatever to alter the definite direction of the Court. Whether such an alteration of the conditions of imprisonment ought in this ease to be effected by the exercise of the Royal prerogative is a matter on which I am not in a position to make a statement at present.
  MR. G. WYNDHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the fact, that as I am informed, gentlemen bearing Her Majesty's commission automatically forfeited their commission unless intervention did take place. [Cries of"Order"!]
  MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.
  MR. T. M. HEAEYasked whether President Kruger did not treat his prisoners as first-class misdemeanants?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYwas understood to say that he did not know.
  SIR ROBERT REID: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any steps for the purpose of bringing to justice persons who have prepared or furthered the recent raid of Dr. Jameson, without risking their own lives?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): I must refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer I gave in reference to this matter early in the Session, and to which I have on other occasions adhered. I must decline to give any information as to any proceedings which I propose to direct, or as to persons against whom any proceedings may be taken.

  CONVICT PRISON WARDERS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in striking the average of time on duty for convict prison warders at nine hours and 15 minutes per day, the 365 days of the year were included; whether clerks and other employés, whose hours are shorter than ordinary prison warders, were also included in the calculation which worked out the average of nine hours and 15 minutes; if so, whether he has any objection to give the average of hours per
  1044
  day and week, including Sundays, during which convict prison warders in uniform are kept on duty, omitting clerks and other higher grade officials not in uniform?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I think some mistake must have been made by the on. Member. The information I gave him in my two previous answers on this subject was that the daily average all the year round worked out at 9 hours 5 minutes, and that the maximum number of hours worked in any one week was 65 hours 40 minutes, which gives a daily average for that week of (about) 9 hours 23 minutes. In making this calculation, the hours of discipline officers alone were reckoned; those of clerks and other employés were not included.

  ARMY FOOD SUPPLIES (IRELAND).
  MR. J. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that the contractor for the supply of meat to the troops at Enniskillen was prosecuted at the Enniskillen Petty Sessions, and fined in the sum of ten pounds sterling, for having a quantity of unsound meat on his premises on the 14th instant, and which had been rejected on the morning of that day by the Military authorities as unsound and unfit for human food, will he state whether the meat supplied to the troops there is Foreign meat, and will he state on how many occasions has the moat been rejected by the Military authorities at Enniskillen since the contract was taken over by the present contractor, and on what dates; and what steps, if any, the Government purpose taking to secure that the troops in future will be supplied with sound and wholesome food?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: With the short notice given by the hon. Member, I have been able to obtain only a telegraphic report, which is as follows;—
  "All meat rejected 14th July. Contractor allowed to replace whole. Contractor fined £10 by Civil authority for tainted meat seized same day on his private premises. The meat is American, slaughtered at Birkenhead. Four rejections altogether—14th June, 29th June, 6th July, 14th July; all under contract held by present contractor."

  1045
  The conditions of the contract secure that the troops shall be supplied with sound and wholesome food, and they appear to be rigidly enforced.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will that meat be English meat?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I have frequently explained that there is no restriction as to the place of origin.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I shall call attention to the subject.
  MR. W. FIELD: Is this system to be allowed to continue in Enniskillen of importing American meat, when Irish meat is available?

  EDUCATION FEE GEANT (SCOTLAND).
  MR. W. THORBURN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that Government has now made provision in the Supplementary Estimates for the larger Foe Grant duo to Scotland during the financial year 1895–6, they will, as in the case of Ireland, make further provision to remedy the injustice sustained by Scotland during the preceding three years under the late Government?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): This matter is now under the consideration of the Treasury and the Scottish Education Department. Of course, Scotland must be treated on the same basis as Ireland, with regard to the Fee Grant in the three years preceding 1895–6.

  SMOKING ACCOMMODATION (LORDS AND COMMONS).
  MR. JOHN AIRD: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if arrangements could be made during the Recess and before the next Session of Parliament for a smoking room to be available for Members both of the House of Lords and House of Commons?
  MR. AKERS - DOUGLAS: The general question of the smoking room accommodation in the House has been receiving my careful consideration, and I regret to say that I have been unable to find any further space in that portion of the building allotted to the House of
  1046
  Commons. Of course, if there is a disposition on the part of the House of Lords, as suggested by my hon. Friend, to meet us with the offer of further accommodation, the difficulty might be solved. [Cheers.] Perhaps my hon. Friend will speak to me on the matter.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether smoking should not be allowed in the map room! ["No."]
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I have already considered that question, and there is a very general objection to it. ["Hear, hear!"]

  EAST INDIA ACCOUNTS.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India when the explanatory memorandum by the State on the East India Accounts and Estimates will be distributed to Members, and whether there is any reason for the delay this year in the distribution?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The memorandum is now ready, the last figures having been received from India by the mail just arrived. The delay in preparation is due to pressure of the work in the Financial Department owing to the mass of information required by the Royal Commission on Indian expenditure.

  WRECK OF STEAMSHIP "DRUMMOND CASTLE."
  MR. H. C. STEPHENS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, with regard to printing the evidence of the Drummond Castle Inquiry, whether, as the larger portion of the cost has been already incurred by the transcribing of the notes, and in view of the importance of the evidence, he will consent that the Report of the Inquiry shall be printed.
  MR. RITCHTE: The Report, which is a very full one, will be printed in the usual course. It deals so clearly and comprehensively with the various points of interest involved that I do not consider it would be of any advantage to incur the expense of publishing the evidence, which I may say would be a very unusual course.

  MOUNTJOY RAILWAY STATION.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade—(1) whether the Great Northern Railway Company still refuse to open the Mount-joy railway station, which was formerly carried on by the previous Company; (2) whether any complaints have been made about the serving of the level crossing at night; (3) and, whether there-establishment of the station has been repeatedly requested by the people of the district?
  MR. RITCHIE: The reply to the first and third paragraphs of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. I know of no complaints about the serving of the level crossing at night. As the hon. Member has already been informed the Board of Trade have no power in the matter. The remedy provided by the law is an appeal to the Bail way Commissioners.

  PERSECUTION OF ARMENIANS.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table of the House correspondence relating to the massacre and persecution of Armenians, which have taken place subsequent to the events described in the last published Reports of Vice Consul Fitzmaurice; whether he can state if the recommendations of Vice Consul Fitzmaurice, arising out of the Biredjik Commission, have been fully carried out: and, whether, in view of the terrible destitution of the Armenians in the disturbed districts, he can give the House any reassuring information as to the steps which are being taken to prevent further outbreaks and to improve the position of the sufferers?
  MR. CURZON: I have already informed the House that in due course further Papers will be laid. Orders have been sent by the Porte to the Turkish Commission at Biredjik that all whodesire torevert to Christianity should be allowed to do so, and that the security of their property, honour, and lives should be guaranteed. Mr. Fitzmaurice has reported that a number of Armenian households have already taken advantage of this permission, and that he expected the return of other Armenians who had fled, and the speedy reversion to Christianity of
  1048
  the neighbouring villages. The Armenian Church, which had been turned into a mosque, had been restored; priests had been brought back and, as recommended by him, a battalion of regulars was on its way to Biredjik from Aleppo to replace the reserves. Her Majesty's Embassy do not cease to bring to the notice of the Porte any special information that reaches them from localities where distress exists, or where further outbreaks may be apprehended, and they have reason to believe that these representations are not without effect.

  LENNARD ESTATE (CLONES, COUNTY MONAGHAN).
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) will he explain why the proprietor tenants on the Lennard estate, Clones, county Monaghan, who purchased their holdings under the Ashbourne Act, and obtained a certified copy of the vesting Order, which Order contained a map of the holding to which it applied, have, since the passing of the Local Registration of Titles Bill, been compelled to lodge the certified copy of the vesting Order with the Registrar of Titles, receiving in lieu thereof a land certificate without any map whatever; (2) is he aware that this has caused great inconvenience to those tenants in cases of disputed right of way or in litigation where maps can only be produced by going to the expense of having new ones made, or compelling the registration authorities to produce the vesting Order by subpoena; (3) whether in the cases of all purchases since the passing of the Act of 1891 the vesting Order and certified copy which are given to the purchaser contain a certificate in the margin that the title has been registered under the Local Registration of Titles Act, and no land certificate is issued; and (4) will he cause the old vesting Orders referred to, with a certificate endorsed thereon, to be returned to the tenants?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: On registration, the land certificate supersedes the vesting Order as the evidence of title, and consequently the copy vesting Order held by the tenant is called in, and a copy land certificate is issued in

  1049
  lieu thereof by the Irish Land Commission, who retain the original. The inconvenience caused is hardly what the second paragraph would suggest, owing to the fact that the registered holdings are marked on the maps retained in the local offices as well as on those in the central office, and can be inspected there, or, if necessary, produced in Court by the registering authority. The vesting Order and certified copy referred to in the third paragraph are, in fact, the land certificate and copy land certificate. In cases in which vesting Orders are executed since the passing of the Act, the duplicate of the vesting Order is issued as a land certificate pursuant to Rule 36 of the General Rules made under the Local Registration of Titles Act. As regards the last paragraph, it would not be desirable to issue two certificates to the owner, as would be the case should a copy land certificate, and a copy vesting Order certified in the way suggested, be issued.

  COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state under what statutory or other authority the Board of Trade have allowed the expenses incurred by the Irish Board of Lights in defending Harrison's case, in which they were condemned in damages and costs; and whether the Board of Trade have had submitted to them any full account of such expenses?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Board of Trade are advised that the costs incurred by the Commissioners of Irish Lights in defending Harrison's case are properly payable, under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, out of the Mercantile Marine Fund, as expenses incurred by the General Lighthouse Authority. The Board of Trade have sanctioned the payment of part of these expenses, but they have not yet received details of the final account.

  AGRICULTURAL PARCEL POST.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General—(1) whether he is considering the question of introducing an agricultural parcel
  1050
  post, at special low rates (as recommended for many years past by the hon. Member for Canterbury), for the carriage of British flowers, fruit, vegetables, poultry, and dairy produce, with a view to give to British cultivators some portion of the forty millions sterling annually paid by British consumers for similar produce from abroad; (2) whether one grave difficulty in the way is the existence of an arrangement made some years ago, whereby 55 per cent. of the postage on parcels is paid to the railway companies for bare carriage, while the Post Office receives only 45 per cent. for doing all the work of collection, sorting, and distribution; and, if so, how long such an arrangement has to run; and (3) whether the further objections caused by the difficulty of distinguishing between Foreign and British produce and between agricultural produce and other articles might be met by requiring every agriculturist sending his produce by the agricultural parcel post to append a statement (somewhat on the lines of that required for the pattern and sample post) stating that the contents are British agricultural produce of his own growing?
  MR. HANBURY: The carriage of parcels of agricultural and daily produce by post at special rates has been advocated for many years past from many quarters, though it is doubtful how far it would benefit the agricultural districts themselves. It is quite true, as the hon. Member states, that the Act of Parliament which directs that 55 per cent. of the postage on parcels should be paid to the railway companies is a factor in the problem of considerable importance. The arrangement made by the Act expires in 1904. There is no condition that a statement should be appended stating that the contents are British (as the hon. Member supposes in the last paragraph of his question) in the sample or pattern post, and so there is no experience to show how far it would be practical in the case of the proposed agricultural parcel post.

  RHODESIA (FOOD SUPPLIES).
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD - BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies—(1) what steps Her Majesty's

  1051
  Government are taking to expedite the conveyance of food supplies to Rhodesia; (2) what progress is being made with the railway line from Mafeking to Buluwayo; and (3) whether Her Majesty's Government will hold fresh military forces in readiness at the termini of the railway lines approaching Rhodesia, so that they can be sent forward as soon as the supplies are increased?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The officials of the British South Africa Company and the Imperial military authorities in South Africa are straining every nerve to increase the foodstuffs in the country. I may mention that I am making inquiries as to the possibility of employing camels for transport, but without much hope that such a step will be found feasible. The rails of the Mafeking-Gaberones line had reached the 53-mile 40-chain peg on June 20. I understand that the progress since then has been at a rapid rate. In reply to the third paragraph of the question, I have to say that it is a question for the discretion of the local military authorities how many troops should be kept at the terminus of the Mafeking line in readiness to be pushed forward and bow many should be kept at the Cape.

  SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT (ATTENDANCES).
  SIR JOSEPH LEESE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, with reference to the recent circular issued by the Science and Art Department, why the Department is only willing to pay a grant in aid on 20 attendances in one elementary art subject and on 30 attendances altogether in two or more subjects, when many more than these attendances may and will be made during a session by students in art schools, and whether in science classes grant is payable on 60 attendances in one subject and on 120 attendances altogether in two or more subjects; and whether the form in question will apply to schools where arrangements for the ensuing session had already been made before the receipt of it on 3rd July?
  SIR J. GORST: The limit to the number of attendances for which the attendance grant can be paid is intended to prevent the grants under the new
  1052
  system from too largely exceeding those under the old. It has been ascertained that there are not many pupils taking the elementary work in art schools who make more than 20 attendances in a session. The attendance grant to science classes is paid on the basis mentioned in the question; but these classes do not get the grants for work executed in the school during the session, which forms a large part of the grant to art schools. In order to avoid the difficulties indicated in the last paragraph of the question, the Committee of Council have decided to give all schools the option of remaining under the old rules for another year.

  STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (MINING ROYALTY).
  MR. A. STRAUSS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the tin miners in the Straits Settlements are demanding a reduction of the royalty payable to the State; and whether, in view of the great depression in the Cornish mining industry, which would be increased thereby, he will consider the advisability of refusing this demand?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information such as that indicated in the hon. Member's Question. If such a demand is made, the decision on it ought prima facie to be decided in accordance with the interests of the Native Protected States concerned.

  VOLUNTEER CORPS (FINANCIAL POSITION).
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if the bonus proposed by the Government and voted by Parliament to enable Volunteer corps to adjust their financial positions has yet been paid; and if, in allocating it, care will be taken not to penalise regiments whose officers have made pecuniary sacrifices for the good of their corps, or whose affairs have been so economically administered as not to show the debts which some regiments have incurred, in the hope that they would one day or other be paid by a compassionate State or a public spirited individual?
  MR. BRODRICK: The issues are being made in all cases in which the finances of the corps are in a fairly satisfactory condition. In the case of those corps whose accounts show a deficiency unprovided for, arrangements are required, before the extra capitation is paid, which shall secure the deficiency being met within a reasonable period and shall prevent its recurrence.

  ARBITRATION (IRELAND).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that at present there is but one arbitrator to carry out arbitration inquiries under the Lands Clauses, Labourers and other Irish Acts, and that it is physically impossible for him to do all the work, he will consider the advisability of appointing additional arbitrators to facilitate proceedings, especially under the new Labourers' Act?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is not a fact that there is but one arbitrator appointed to hold inquiries referred to in the Question. There are two. Delays have occasionally occurred in arbitration proceedings, but these delays have rarely been attributable to the inability of these gentlemen to find sufficient time, and have generally been caused by the prescribed procedure, which is not expeditious, or by defective information placed before the arbitrator by local authorities. The Labourers Bill now before Parliament proposes, by way of simplifying procedure under the Labourers Acts, to apply the procedure under the Housing of Working Classes Act instead of that under the Lands Clauses Act. One of the effects of this will be that the arbitrator will be appointed by the Local Government Board.

  LONGFORD CANAL HARBOUR.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the dangerous condition of the canal harbour at Longford and the advice given to the Midland Great Western Railway Company to rail it in, which they say legal advice compels them not to do, will he consent to the introduction of a short Bill in next Session
  1054
  to authorise the construction of protective palings at such places?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am not prepared to make any statement as to the legislation of next Session, but if the hon Member introduces such a Bill as he suggests I will give it careful consideration.

  MAIL SERVICE (IRELAND).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General whether any, and if so what, steps have been taken to improve the mid-day mail service between Clones and Cavan and Clones and Belturbet, as promised by him on 5th June?
  MR. HANBURY: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that any promise was made in the answer given on the 5th June to improve the Clones, Cavan and Belturbet mid-day mail service. On the contrary, it was stated that the existing arrangement of trains did not admit of a better day mail service and that the establishment of special trains would not be justified.

  MERIONETHSHIRE MINES COMMITTEE.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether and how far the recommendations of the Merionethshire Mines Committee have been adopted and put into operation?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: A large and important part of the recommendations of this Committee has reference to improved methods of working, the adoption of which is voluntary on the part of the owners, and to such matters as the health, food, clothing, houses, etc., of the workmen. How far these recommendations have been carried out I cannot say, but by distributing the Report and having it translated into Welsh, the Home Office has done all it can to bring these matters to the knowledge of the persons concerned, and the inspectors have constantly pressed them upon the mine owners. Of the other recommendations some require legislation and must wait until time can be found to amend the Metalliferous Mines Acts;

  1055
  but others can be carried out by means of special rules, and the chief inspector is now endeavouring to secure their adoption.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING AND ELECTRIC TRACTION.
  MR. ELLIOTT LEES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the danger of injury being done to existing electric lighting undertakings if electric railways should be constructed under the Light Railways Bill, unless the regulations now prescribed by the Board of Trade with regard to electric traction be amended so as to include precautions to prevent the currents of existing electric lighting undertakings being affected by the currents of electric railways; and whether he is prepared to amend these regulations?
  MR. RITCHIE: It will be the duty of the Board of Trade to see that there are inserted in the Order authorising a light railway proposed to be worked electrically such provisions to secure public safety and the interests of electric lighting or other undertakings as they may deem advisable. If it is necessary to amend the existing regulations they can be amended in the Order.

  ASSIZES (STAFFORD).
  MR. CHARLES SHAW: I beg to ask the Attorney General if the Lord Chancellor contemplates issuing an Order in Council for the abolition of civic business at all future assizes in the borough of Stafford; if he can state what are the exact terms of such proposed Order; and to request that such Order may not be promulgated until the local authorities and the county council have had an opportunity of expressing their protests against any such change.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I venture to refer my hon. Friend to my answer to the previous questions on this subject. The Lord Chancellor has assured me that no Orders will be made without affording the localities interested an opportunity of expressing their views upon the matter.

  INCIDENCE OF LOCAL TAXATION INQUIRY.
  MR. THORBURN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Commission has yet been appointed to inquire into the incidence of local taxation; and, if not, if he will give an assurance that it will be appointed before the close of the present Session.
  MR. CHAPLIN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The constitution of the Commission is far advanced. I have no doubt that it will be completed before the end of the Session, and that I shall shortly be able to make the announcement of its appointment.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Can the First Lord of the Treasury give us any further information as to the course of public business, especially in regard to Supply?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): On Friday we propose to take the Votes for the Home Office and other administrative offices. The Army and Scotch Votes will be taken next week. There will be a Saturday sitting, I am afraid. I will state what Bills will be taken on Saturday to-morrow.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
MR. RITCHIEasked leave to introduce a Bill to legalise the use of weights and measures of the metric system. He explained that the Government did not propose to pass the Bill this Session. It had been prepared in compliance with the wishes of many Chambers of Commerce. They desired to know on what lines the Government were inclined to legislate on this subject, and they would be able to consider the Bill during the Recess.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESgave the right hon. Gentleman notice that he should oppose this Bill with all his power. If the right hon. Gentleman was going to impose a metric standard on the country, and try to drive out of the country the present system, which provided accommodation for all

1057
the purposes of the people, he was entering upon a crusade which would be long and which he would find very difficult. He was not prepared to depart from the English yard or quart as standards, in I order to render unintelligible a great part of the literature of the country. At every stage he should give to this most audacious Bill all the opposition in his power.
Bill to legalise the use of weights and measures of the metric system, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and the First Lord of the Treasury; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 329.]

BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA. APPOINTMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THECOLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,),who was received with cheers, rose to move:—
"That a Select Committee he appointed to inquire into the administration of the British South Africa Company, and to report what alterations are desirable in the government of the territories under the control of the Company;
"That the Committee have leave to hear Counsel to such extent as they shall see fit, and have power to send for persons, papers, and records."
The right hon. Gentleman, said: Mr. Speaker, it will be in the recollection of the House that on several occasions I have promised, on behalf of the Government, that as soon as Dr. Jameson's trial was concluded I would state the proposals of the Government with regard to the further Inquiry into the administration of the British South Africa Company; and, according to that promise, on the night the verdict was given I placed the present notice on the Paper. ["Hear, hear!"] We have had to consider, and we have considered very carefully, in what form this further Inquiry should be made. The question was, of course, mainly between a Commission and a Committee, and I confess that, as far as I was personally concerned, I was inclined to favour the form of a Commission—["Hear, hear!"]
1058
—although I admit that there is a great deal to be said on the other side. The reasons for selecting a Commission would have been twofold. In the first place, a Commission would have undoubtedly more of a judicial character, it would be more absolutely free from any political element than a Parliamentary Committee, and in this matter, I think, we should all admit that would have been of very considerable advantage. In the second place, a Commission would undoubtedly have got to work rather earlier; and then, again, I think, there will be universal agreement that this is one of those matters which it is most desirable should be cleared out of the way as soon as possible. ["Hear, hear!"] We want to close the chapter of inquiry, we want to come to the great questions underlying the problems in South Africa, which are independent altogether of recent occurrences; and we cannot come to the consideration of those great questions until this matter of the Inquiry, and the consequences of inquiry, are altogether done away with. I think, therefore, the House will unanimously agree that the earliest possible moment is the best moment for concluding such an Inquiry. ["Hear, hear!"] But I may point out that the difference in point of time between a Commission and a Committee would not be very great. A Commission could not possibly meet until after the long vacation, and therefore the difference in time would be measured only by weeks and no longer period. I, therefore, felt that, although there were strong considerations in favour of a Commission, they were not strong enough to make it absolutely necessary to seek inquiry by that method. There are other grounds, no doubt, in favour of a Parliamentary Committee. In the first place, there is no doubt that precedents, and especially the precedent connected with the Inquiry into the affairs of the old East India Company, are all in favour of a Parliamentary Inquiry; and there is something which I regard as more important than that. The reference we propose to submit to the Commission, is a very wide one, and it is a reference which I do not think could be submitted to any body in the nature of a Judicial Commission. We could not ask a I Judicial Commission to investigate all

1059
the details of the administration of the Chartered Company, or ask them to give us advice on matters of policy which are matters entirely for the Executive Government and the House at large. In addition to these, which I think are strong reasons, finding, after inquiry, that on the whole the general opinion of the House was undoubtedly in favour of a wide reference, and consequently in favour of a Parliamentary Committee, the Government decided to move for that form of Inquiry. ["Hear, hear!"] When dealing with the question before and pointing out the alternative, I did suggest that if a Parliamentary Committee were to be appointed it might take the form of a Joint Committee of the two Houses, and I based that suggestion on the latest precedent—namely, the proposal for further inquiry into East Indian questions, which was intended to have taken that form. But here, again, objection was taken in certain quarters of the House, and as I desire very much, if possible, to carry all sections of the House with me in this proceeding, I have not thought it desirable to insist on what I think myself would have been a reasonable alternative. ["Hear, hear!"]Therefore, the proposal I now make to the House is for a Parliamentary Committee, which I hope the House will consent to make a small Committee. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not think a matter of this kind can be properly inquired into by a large Committee. ["Hear, hear!"] We know what great difficulties there are, and how the size of a Committee tends to prolong Inquiry. I think myself that a Committee of 13 would be ample, unless there is any objection to that number on superstitious grounds. [Laughter.] I think that 13, or at the outside 15, is the largest Committee that ought to be appointed. ["Hear, hear!"] I have stated that the reference we propose to give to the Committee is a wide one. That is only in accordance with the promises that have been given. In the first place, a promise was given in the Queen's Speech that there should be a full inquiry into the origin and circumstances attending the raid, and, in communication with President Kruger, a promise was also given, though in different language, that there would be
1060
the fullest possible inquiry. Then, subsequently, in answer to questions, I have expressed my personal opinion that there was no objection to the enlargement of the Inquiry into questions connected with the administration of the Chartered Company, and also into the circumstances which have led to the recent rebellion in Matabeleland and Rhodesia. In answer to a question, I have said that I consider that is secured by the terms of the reference I have put on the Paper. In choosing these terms my object and intention was to choose the widest possible form of reference, and I have no doubt whatever that the terms actually chosen do include, not merely inquiry into the cause of the recent rebellion, but also into the circumstances of the recent invasion of the Transvaal; and I was under the impression that the Leader of the Opposition shared my opinion in that respect; but I judge that I am in error in that, because I have heard that the right hon. Gentleman and other Members have put down Amendments intended to make it clear that an Inquiry into the origin of the raid is contemplated. There can be no possible objection to make it clear what is the undoubted intention of the Government, and in those circumstances I say at once that I propose to accept the Amendment down in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. There is only one other matter to which I need refer, and that is the proposal that the Committee have leave to hear counsel. The terms of the Motion state that "The Committee have leave to hear counsel to such extent as they shall see fit." I may say that that is a statement taken from the terms of reference in the case of the Hyderabad-Deccan Company. I believe that is a precedent we may very well follow. It gives the power to parties interested in the Inquiry to appear by counsel. At the same time it gives the Committee power to restrain counsel from excessive activity—[laughter]—and to confine them to what is strictly relevant to the Inquiry. I do not think that there is anything further to explain.
MR. H. LABOUCHERE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what he intends to do with regard to the taking of evidence on oath?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Committees always have power to take evidence on oath, and I assume the Committee would do so.
MR. LABOUCHERE: In the case of the Committee moved for by Mr. Bradlaugh it was expressly stated that all the evidence should be taken on oath. Would the right hon. Gentleman object to that?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it is a matter that should be left to the Committee. I have expressed my opinion that the evidence will be taken on oath, as it was taken in the Hyderabad-Deccan case. In that case they stated on the first day that they would take all evidence on oath. I beg to move, Sir. [Cheers.]
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I rise to express my general concurrence in all that has been said by the right hon. Gentleman. I think, Sir, that he has been perfectly right in determining that this Inquiry should be made by a Committee and a Committee of the House of Commons. The reasons he has given against a Commission are, I think, conclusive, and I should say that a judicial body could not with advantage deal with a question of this kind, which is not mainly or primarily a judicial question. It is a question of administration of an Imperial character, and is one which is entirely out of the province of Judges to deal with. Therefore, I entirely concur in the view that this Inquiry should be by a Committee of the House of Commons. ["Hear, hear!"] The House of Commons has dealt for more than a century with the Government of India by great Committees. Everybody who knows anything of the history of India knows that the form of government in India was settled by Committees which sat in the time of Pitt, Fox, and Burke, at the end of the last century. Therefore, I cannot see that any body is so fit to deal with this question as a Committee of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman has also referred to the question of time, and he has said that a Commission would have saved very little time as compared with a Committee. But also, I think, the question of time is not so material as it would have been six months ago,
1062
because the Inquiry here is to be what is to be done in the future with this district in South Africa. Well, in the midst of this great conflagration no Committee could have arrived at a satisfactory conclusion until they learned what condition the country was in after that conflagration was over. We cannot decide what the new house shall be until the fire is extinguished or until we know what are the ruins. I very much fear that the condition of South Africa is such that it will require a great reconstruction before we arrive at anything like a satisfactory conclusion. Therefore, if any thing like a Report upon the future administration of the territories now under the Government of the Queen should take place immediately, or at some early period, we should come to a conclusion of very little value. Until this rebellion is repressed and until we know what remains after the destructive effects of that rebellion, until we know what population will still remain in Rhodesia and in what condition that population is, we cannot properly consider or come to any conclusion as to what or whether any limitations are desirable in the government of that country. I am not so much impressed, therefore, as some people are by the consideration of time. It is quite plain that whatever you have—a Commission or a Committee—you cannot come to any satisfactory conclusion until you are able to know a great deal more of the condition of that country than you know now. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the terms of the original Motion, and I entirely concur in what he has said. He was kind enough to show me the terms of the Motion, and my first impression was that they covered everything. It was only after further examination and reflection, just before arriving at the House yesterday, that I put my Amendment upon the Paper, and I tried at the time to communicate with the right hon. Gentleman, and I was sorry that I was not able to see him. That is the reason that the Amendment appears upon the Paper to-day without notice of it having been given to the right hon. Gentleman. ["Hear, hear!"] I have followed in the Amendment the exact words of the Queen's Speech. I have never had the

1063
smallest doubt that the right hon. Gentleman intended to make the preparations for the incursion into the South African Republic one of the subjects of Inquiry, or that it would be one of the primary subjects of the Inquiry. ["Hear, hear!"] Indeed, his own words, speaking of the subject, were:—
"I have promised that the proposed Inquiry shall be full and searching,"
and then he said:—
"What is to be inquired into? The first matter is Dr. Jameson's invasion and all the circumstances attending it."
Therefore I have followed entirely the statement and intention of the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the nature of the proposed Inquiry. I see that there are upon the Paper various other Amendments by hon. Friends of mine who have been good enough to say that they have no objection to my Amendment having precedence over theirs. I have observed that they have raised further points than those which appear in the terms of my Amendment, but I think and hope that the hon. Gentlemen agree with me that the Amendment which I have put upon the Paper in fact covers the other points referred to in their Amendments. ["Hear, hear!"] I observe that my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy desired to include in the Inquiry the relations of the British authorities in South Africa to the preparations in view of the raid. I believe that my Amendment would include that. The Inquiry would be entirely defective if it did not include it, but I imagine that the word "circumstances" covers that completely. Of course, no circumstances can be more important with reference to the raid than the knowledge of the authorities—the Imperial authorities, whether in the colony or at home—as to the character of that incursion. ["Hear, hear!"] Therefore, I hope that there is no doubt in the matter, otherwise I should certainly have desired to have included express words on the subject. It is thoroughly understood that the word circumstances, "which is a general word, will include an Inquiry into the co-operation with the raid of anybody, whether colonial authorities or Imperial authorities, or anybody outside them,
1064
because we want to know the whole history of the matter. ["Hear, hear!"] That is why I prefer the general word "circumstances" to any limiting words which would appear to restrain rather than to extend the Inquiry. ["Hear, hear!"] I so read those words, and if that be so I think that the object of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and that of the hon. Member for King's Lynn will be met by my Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"] That is, I take it, the general understanding on the subject. ["Hear, hear!"] With reference to the words of the Resolution relating to counsel, I entirely approve of giving the Committee power to determine how far it is convenient to employ counsel in the matter. That, I think, is a useful provision. With reference to the questions just now asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, as to the administration of the oath, I think that that ought to be left to the discretion of the Committee. I understand from the authorities of the House that a Committee of the House of Commons has absolute power to administer the oath in cases where it thinks fit, and I believe that was done in the case of the Honduras loan. In the case of Mr. Brad-laugh's Committee, which sat to consider a question of the malversation of the City accounts, there was an absolute instruction to administer the oath in all cases. That you can understand being done where there is a charge of malversation. If this Inquiry should include matters of a criminal character it would be necessary that the oath should be administered, and the Committee would unquestionably so administer it, but in reference to those parts of the Inquiry which relate to political considerations and to the nature of the future administration of the country, witnesses might be called to whom you would not think of administering the oath when you want their opinion, such witnesses, for instance, as great colonial governors, administrators of India, and so forth. ["Hear, hear!"] As the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to say that he will accept this Amendment, I think that it would be better that it should be moved at the beginning of his Motion rather than where I have moved it, as then the administrative parts would come together. ["Hear, hear!"]

1065
I therefore propose to move, after the word "into," in the second line, the insertion of these words:—
"the origin and circumstances of the incursion into the South African Republic by an armed force from the territories under the control of the Company, and into."
The right hon. Gentleman will also see that it will be necessary, after the word "report," in the second line, to insert the words "to report thereon, and further to report." I beg to move my Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETThoped that the Inquiry would be thorough and complete, and would not be limited merely to complicity on the part of British subjects, but would include the great anti-British plot which had been working in South Africa during the last ten years and more, particularly during the last three years. No doubt a great effort was being made to pull down the great Englishman who had done so much to build up our dominion in South Africa. An Inquiry ought to extend to the causes of Mr. Rhodes's action in South Africa. ["Hear, hear."] If it were a complete and all-round Committee, those who had endeavoured to uphold British influence in South Africa would have nothing to suffer from the closest inquiry.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid there were a few points he would like to have cleared up. The Colonial Secretary had said there was to be a full Inquiry into all the circumstances. He did not doubt that that was the desire of the right hon. Gentleman, but there were such things as technicalities, and he therefore desired to have a little more information about the scope of the Inquiry. First, would the genesis of the charter and the reliability of the statements made to the Government in respect to the concession on which the charter was based be included in the Inquiry? He thought the action of the Chartered Company in respect to the military operations which brought them into Matabeleland should also be included. Then, with regard to the raid into the Transvaal, the Inquiry should cover the origin of the raid, the connection of the company or of any of the officials of the company with the raid, and the expenditure of money belonging
1066
either to the company or to officials of the company with a view to provoking an outbreak in Johannesburg as an excuse, or a colourable excuse, for the raid. The next point was the connection, if not with the raid, with the preparations for the raid of any of the official authorities. He would also like to know whether the Inquiry would include the control by the London Board of the Chartered Company over their officials in South Africa, and particularly the control exercised by the gentlemen appointed by the Imperial Government when the charter was granted as a guarantee of good faith. The next point was the mode in which the capital of the company was obtained, and of the expenditure of that capital, together with the relations of the company with some other companies brought out under its auspices. There were a vast number of persons in England—foolish persons no doubt—who when they saw the words "Royal Charter" company, were under the impression that there was some species of legal guarantee from the Government that the expenses of the company would be well administered. There was no such legal guarantee, but there was a moral obligation on the part of the Government to see that nothing unfair was done; and, in view of the fact that a very large amount of money had been lost by some persons and made by some other persons, by the simple process of transferring it from the pockets of some persons to the pockets of other persons, and considering that this was a "Royal Charter" company, the public should have the right to go into the question of the capital, to see whether the reasons which induced people to subscribe the capital were fairly set forth.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,)said that a slight verbal alteration was needed in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, or otherwise a branch of the proposed Inquiry would be inadvertently excluded. He suggested that the words "from the territories under the control of the company" should be omitted, as Mafeking, from which some of the armed forces started, was not under the control of the company, but was part of Her Majesty's dominions.
SIR W. HARCOURTsaid he had taken the words of the Amendment from the Queen's Speech, but he saw the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and agreed to the proposed correction of the Amendment.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR W. HARCOURT SIR W. HARCOURT moved, after the word "into," to insert the words—
"the origin and circumstances of the incursion into the South African Republic by an armed force, and into."
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and agreed to.
Another Amendment made by inserting, after the word "report," the words "thereon and further to report."
MR. J. H. DALZIELsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper to include in the Inquiry "the relations of the British authorities in South Africa to the preparations in view of the raid," and he should move the addition of the words at a subsequent stage, unless he received an assurance that the reference as it stood covered the point.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That point is covered.
MR. DALZIELsaid his desire was that there should be an Inquiry into the failure on the part of our representatives in different parts of South Africa to inform Her Majesty's Government of the preparations for the raid, but as that was to be included in the Inquiry he had nothing more to say.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid be had also put down an Amendment to secure that, not only the action of the South Africa Company, but the action of our representatives in South Africa in connection with the raid, should be inquired into, and he was glad that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition covered his point. He had heard with satisfaction the full and ample statement of the Colonial Secretary. By it the right hon. Gentleman had established another claim on the confidence of the House,
1068
and he hoped that the promise of the right hon. Gentleman that the Inquiry should be full and complete would be received with satisfaction by every Member of the House.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid it was an extraordinary thing that this Inquiry was not held at a much earlier stage, and he regretted that, owing to necessity, it would be still further postponed for a period of four or five months. Remembering what were the allegations which had been made, without the slightest foundation, no doubt, against the Colonial Office and others who ought to be perfectly clear from this charge, the necessity for postponement would not be regretted by himself alone. He hoped that the existence, of this Inquiry would not be the cause of a postponement of the decision by the Attorney General as to what should be done in regard to others concerned in this raid. He was not at all in favour of political prosecutions, or of severe punishments for political offences; but he was strongly opposed to there being two classes of persons in this country—one class, of very great influence, authority, and wealth, who escaped punishment—[cheers]—and another class of limited capacity—many of them young fellows who had risked their lives, though wrongly—who were to be punished. He would not specify names. It might be that Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Beit were perfectly innocent. But it was not fair to postpone the decision, nor would it be fair that the existence of a Committee of this kind and its inquiries should be the means of absolving from criminal prosecution persons who had not risked their lives while others had. There were two courses which the Government might take, and there was much to be said for either. One was to extend a political amnesty to those who had been punished, and the other was to see that there should be no partiality in dealing with persons. He did not suggest for a moment that the Attorney General was a person at all likely to do any injustice in the matter; and he recognised that the hon. and learned Gentleman was entitled to say that he was not prepared to give any answer at the moment, though he was not quite justified in resenting the question. But it was not fair play that the

1069
men who had been sentenced should remain in prison, if others, who were guilty and who slunk away and did not face the enemy in battle, were to escape punishment. [Cheers.]
MR. J. M. MACLEANsaid that he did not wish to disturb the general harmony, but he looked with some suspicion on the agreement which had been come to between the two Front Benches since it had received the benediction of the hon. Member for Northampton. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member was very anxious that the Inquiry should go very far back. But the House was also entitled to know down to what date the Inquiry was to be brought—whether it was to include the administration of the Chartered Company's territories since the military control was taken over by the Colonial Office. That was an important question, which concerned the House quite as much as the future of the Chartered Company. ["Hear, hear!"] He wished to know whether Sir Frederick Carrington was hampered by his instructions in getting such a force at the beginning as might have been used effectively to put down the rebellion before it had spread all over the country and desolated it. ["Hear, hear!"] The Leader of the Opposition made out an excellent case for not having a Committee of Inquiry at all. The right hon. Gentleman seemed glad that the Inquiry was put off for some four or five months; and the only reason why he himself accepted the Motion of the Colonial Secretary was that he firmly believed that if the Inquiry were put off for four or five months it was exceedingly unlikely that the Committee would ever meet at all. Next year there would be very much more important questions to discuss. By that time there might not be any of the Chartered Company's territory left for them to quarrel over. We might have to decide what was to be done to hold our own in South Africa, and to retain the respect and good will of the British colonists there. [Cheers.] What was there to learn from any Inquiry the Committee might make? He did not care what became of the Chartered Company now. It was useless for any Imperial purpose. It had had all its real powers taken away and centred in the Colonial Office; and what had become of
1070
the men who were its administrators? We knew what had become of Dr. Jameson, and as for Mr. Rhodes, he had been stripped of his high position as controller of Rhodesia and Prime Minister of Cape Colony. He was reduced to the rank of a private citizen. Was that not punishment enough for a man who aspired to rule all South Africa—a man who was petted and patted on the back by the Leader of the Opposition for conducting that incursion into Mata beleland which is now blamed by the hon. Member for Northampton? [Cheers, and dissent from Sir W. HARCOURT.] The right hon. Gentleman shook his head; but the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member took the greatest interest in Mr. Rhodes, made him a Privy Councillor, introduced him to the table of the Queen, and spoke of him as a man who had done great service to the Empire. ["Hear, hear!"] And yet those services were to be one of the subjects inquired into by the Parliamentary Committee. Mr. Rhodes's conduct had been inquired into by men who were much more nearly interested in his career than Members of the House of Commons—by the Parliament at the Cape; and that Parliament, while condemning Mr. Rhodes for using the money at his command in order to equip a force which might have gone to the assistance of the revolutionary party in Johannesburg, had emphatically declared that his was a high motive, and had refused to oust him from the Cape Parliament. [Cheers.] Of course Mr. Rhodes had a high motive. He only did what Lord Loch threatened to do a few years ago, and what he recently boasted of in the House of Lords. Lord Loch told President Kruger that if there were a revolution in Johannesburg, and if the Transvaal Government could not protect the lives and property of British citizens he (Lord Loch) would interfere, and he had assembled on the frontier of the Transvaal a force for the aid of British subjects. What else had Mr. Rhodes done? He was no party to the raid; and public opinion in his own country had pronounced strongly that no moral censure ought to be cast on these men for what had been done. The verdict of the Jury in the Jameson trial was that the prisoners were to be excused on account of the provocation

1071
given by the Transvaal Government. [Cheers.] That was the feeling of the bulk of the people in this country and South Africa, and the House would have to be careful how it put itself in conflict with the feeling of British colonists in South Africa, and how it excited strong feeling in this country with regard to the Transvaal by pressing for the further punishment of Mr. Rhodes. [Cheers.]
MR. J. C. FLYNNthought that the promise made to him in June by the Colonial Secretary was not covered by the terms of the Motion, and suggested the addition of the words "and the origin and circumstances connected with the rising of the native races in Matabeleland."
MR. BRYN ROBERTSfeared that the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Monmouthshire might have the same limiting effect which had been pointed out as an objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. There was some danger of the Committee taking a technical view, and saying that, inasmuch as the origin and circumstances attending the incursion into the Transvaal were specifically mentioned, it was not permissible to inquire into the origin and circumstances attending the incursion two or three years ago into Matabeleland, on the principle expressio unius est exclusio alterius. He hoped the Secretary for the Colonies would give an assurance to the House as to the view of the Government on the point, and to enable him to do so he moved to insert words to cover an inquiry into the origin of the British South Africa Company.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Really, I think the hon. Member can hardly expect me to declare what the Committee will do. I can only express my own opinion, and would say generally that I do not think the House would be wise to enlarge this Inquiry to such an extent as would make the Inquiry a perfect farce. It is a little late to go back on the origin of the Chartered Company. That, at all events, we need not inquire into, provided we have full power to inquire into the way in which they have used the charter, and whether they deserve to be continued in the charter. To do that, the whole question of its administration is opened up by the terms of reference, and, therefore, I think
1072
every single point made by the hon. Member for Northampton would be included except the genesis of the charter. That being before there was any administration, might be held to be outside the Inquiry. May I say, also, that I have not the slightest doubt that the origin and circumstances attending the Matabele insurrection are included under any inquiry into the administration of the Chartered Company.
SIR ALBERT ROLLITpointed out the danger of specifying particular subjects of inquiry, because they had a tendency to exclude other things by inference. He thought the words of the Colonial Secretary, which were couched in general terms, were the safest means of obtaining the object, which was a thorough, broad, and complete Inquiry.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid this subject was of tremendous interest to Irishmen. It had to do with the question of insurrection, of endeavouring to overturn established authority, and it had to do afterwards with the treatment of prisoners engaged in such insurrectionary movement. He desired to say that Her Majesty's Ministers, with the exception of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, had condemned in advance the course they were taking to-day by their action eight years ago, on the occasion of the charges and allegations made against certain Irish Members. On the question of a Committee of Inquiry into those charges and allegations, this was the language used by the First Lord of the Treasury, the fate Mr. W. H. Smith:—
"Apart from other considerations, we are of opinion that the passions excited by Debates in this House during the last four or five years render it hardly possible for Members to divest themselves altogether of party prejudices and feeling, and to enter into a judicial Inquiry of this character in a judicial spirit."
And he added:—
"The issues are tremendous to the character of the House and those concerned in this great trial."
What course did they propose to follow on the present occasion? The issues here, too, were tremendous. Party passion had been inflamed, and yet they proposed that Gentlemen who had been

1073
engaged in that party conflict should be both judge and jury. This point about judge and jury was the point taken by the Colonial Secretary himself. The right hon. Gentleman's position was much stronger than that of the Government of the day, for he said:—
"A Committee of the House of Commons would have to undertake to be judge and jury too."
So they would be in the case of Dr. Jameson and his associates. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded:—
"I may say at once that I differ from many hon. Members of the House on one point "
—and there he occupied a more logical position than his Government—
"I am sorry the Government did not grant a Committee. I am perfectly convinced the result would have been so unsatisfactory and incomplete that it would have prepared the way to a unanimous assent to a different kind of investigation."
The Solicitor General of that day, the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, gave the reasons which, he said, rendered the House of Commons an inefficient body to try the question. He quoted from the charges of The Times these words:—
"They have, however, revealed nearly all the Members of the first Home Rule Ministry Mr. Parnell himself, Mr. Justin McCarthy,'Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. Healy, Mr. Biggar, the Messrs. Redmond, Mr. William O'Brien, and Sir. Davitt—in trade and traffic were avowed dynamiters and known contrivers of murder."
That being the case, the Irish Members were put to an expense of £25,000 to defend their character before a judicial court, upon the plea that this House was incompetent and incapable. Exactly the same class of consideration would arise before this Committee. Every Member who took a part in it would be more or less a partisan; his decisions must of necessity be affected by Party considerations, and the decisions would be arrived at by a majority composed altogether of Members of one Party, and the other Party would say that it was a Tory finding or a Liberal finding as the case might be. He expressed no opinion as to the question between a
1074
Committee and a Commission, but, looking at the events of 1888, he thought that the Government had taken an entirely different course now from the previous occasion. Was the Attorney General of the day disabled from sitting on the Committee; was the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, who defended Dr. Jameson, disabled from sitting on the Committee; and, if so, was it because they had been engaged on one side or the other in the trial? Were the Government endeavouring to establish that this Committee could be anything else but a body of partisans, because they would exclude two legal gentlemen who had been engaged in the trial? If the House was competent to make this Inquiry, every Member was competent to sit on it, and the suggestion that they could add anything to the deliverance which the Committee would make, by reason of the fact that they made selections from particular quarters of the House, was to strike a blow at the whole principle of the appointment of Select Committees.
SIR H. HAVELOCK-ALLANmaintained that this was a great national question. The question which the House was going to inquire into was not the limited question of the administration of the Chartered Company, but the greater political question as to what should be the composition of the future Government of South Africa, how it should he administered and composed, and what the governing authority should be. The Inquiry to be undertaken was akin to that which took place after the battle of Plassey in 1757, when the administration of India was in abeyance, and when the House called upon a Select Committee to decide how India should be administered in future. It was not a question which rested with the House of Commons alone; it was a national question, and it ought to be treated as such. On this account the Committee should not consist of Members of the House of Commons alone, but should, as in other great questions of Constitutional importance, be composed of Members of the other House also. There were impartial men in that House, who, by long years of experience, had acquaintance with the affairs of South Africa. Why, then, should they not include within the scope of the Mem-

1075
bership of the Committee a number of Members of the Upper House? He asked whether it was permissible for him to move an Amendment in this sense?
MR. SPEAKERsaid it would not be in order. The House had already passed the first line, which committed the Bill to a Select Committee of that House.
SIR H. HAVELOCK-ALLAN: Can I add as a separate clause at the end: "And that this Select Committee have power to add to its number, for the purposes of, and in the course of this Inquiry, certain selected Members of the other House of Parliament (Peers)."
MR. SPEAKER: That would be an Amendment contradicting what has already been agreed.
MR. JOHN DILLONasked whether the wording of the reference would leave the Inquiry open to consider the questions connected with the raising of the capital, the distribution of the shares of the Chartered Company and their manipulation, or would it simply be confined to the administration of the affairs of Rhodesia? The Committee ought to have that power.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have answered that question, in reply to the hon. Member for Northampton. Undoubtedly, the word "administration" is a wide word, and it would cover that.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Ordered, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the origin and circumstances of the incursion into the South African Republic by an armed force, and into the administration of the British South Africa Company, and to report thereon, and further to report what alterations are desirable in the Government of the territories under the control of the company.
Ordered, that the Committee have leave to hear counsel to such extent as they shall see fit, and have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  TRUCK BILL.
  Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment (27th July) proposed on consideration of the Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee.
  Clause 26,—

  TRUCK BILL.

    DEDUCTIONS OR PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF DAMAGED GOODS.
    (1.) An employer shall not make any contract with any workman for any deduction from the gross sum contracted to he paid by the employer to the workman, or for any payment to the employer by the workman for or in respect of bad or negligent work or injury to the materials or other property of the employer, unless—

    (a) the contract is embodied in a printed notice affixed at the pit head or at the entrance of a factory or workshop, and in such parts of a mine, factory, or workshop as one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines or Factories may direct or approve, and constantly kept so affixed in such a position that it can be easily read by the persons employed in the mine, factory, or workshop; or the contract is in writing, signed by the workman; and

    (b) the deduction or payment to be made under the contract does not exceed the actual or estimated damage or loss occasioned to the employer by the act or omission of the workman, or of some person over whom he has control, or for whom he has by the contract agreed to be responsible; and

    (c) the amount of the deduction or payment is fair and reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.

    (2.) An employer shall not make any such deduction or receive any such payment unless—

    (a) the deduction or payment is made in pursuance of, or in accordance with, such a contract as aforesaid; and

    (b) particulars in writing showing the acts or omissions in respect of which the deduction or payment is made and the amount thereof are supplied to the workman on each occasion when a deduction or payment is made.

    (3.) This section shall apply to the case of a shop assistant in like manner as it applies to the case of a workman.
    Amendment proposed (27th July) in Paragraph (b), Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "actual or estimated."
    Question proposed, "That the words 'actual or estimated' stand part of the Bill."
    Debate resumed.
    MR. REGINALD McKENNAsaid that he would not proceed further with the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL (Stockton) moved the omission of Sub-section (3), in order to raise a very important question on the whole clause. The clause proposed to exempt employers who deducted from the wages of workmen the cost of the value of damaged goods. This was a new aspect of the Truck Laws. In the original Act of 1831, he did not find a reference to the power of employers to deduct for damaged goods, nor in the Act of 1887. There was no doubt of the fact that the law had decided that the employers had the right to deduct, but this clause and this sub-section carried the law very much further than was ever intended. He understood that the Home Secretary was legislating practically in favour of persons engaged in trade where the goods manufactured ranged from a penny to a sixpence and a shilling. But this Bill would refer and would control every trade throughout the United Kingdom. The heavy industries of the country would also be affected. Engineering, shipbuilding, iron moulders, joiners, iron and steel workers would be seriously affected by the clause. Those trades were paid more or less by piece work, and in the iron and steel trade the bulk of the workmen were paid by tonnage. Under this sub-section workmen would be liable to be fined in respect of damage done to goods in their hands. They might be made to pay the value of the goods in addition to the loss of wages which they would incur. Then, under this clause, a contractor would become responsible for every act or omission on the part of his workmen, and would be responsible for all goods that were damaged. The clause would have far-reaching effects. A man might be called upon to do some work on the spur of the moment, and not being used to it he might make a mistake and damage the
    1078
    goods. In these circumstances it would be cruel to charge him with the cost of the article. It was possible that a clause like this might cause the total suspension of some of our great industries. He begged to move that the sub-section be omitted.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,)said that the hon. Member was under a misapprehension as to the effect of the clause, The Bill did not purpose in any part of it to render legal anything that was not illegal. It was a limiting Bill. Conditions were to be imposed for the protection of the workmen, and to enable inspectors to discover the perpetration of anything which it was improper to do. The law was not carried a bit further by this clause, except so far as it was carried further in the interests of the workmen themselves. In cases where he was satisfied that the workmen in a particular industry did not require the additional protection which it was proposed to give, the Secretary of State would have a power of exemption. It would not be necessary to insist upon the application of provisions which the men themselves should deem unnecessary. The customs of trade would not be interfered with. The liability of workmen would not be increased, and they would have this protection, that a contract would be illegal unless it was fair and reasonable, having regard to all the aspects of the case. The intention and effect of the clause were exactly the opposite of what the hon. Member imagined, and therefore he trusted that the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause 3,—

    DEDUCTIONS OR PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF MATERIALS.
    (1.) An employer shall not make any contract with any workman for any deduction from the gross sum contracted to be paid by the employer to the workman, or for any payment to the employer by the workman for, or in respect of, the use or supply of materials, tools or machines, standing room, light, heat, or any

    1079
    other thing to he done or provided by the employer in relation to the work or labour of the workman unless—

    (a) the contract is embodied in a printed noice affixed at the pit head or at the entrance of a factory or workshop, and in such parts of a mine, factory, or workshop as one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines or Factories may direct or approve, and constantly kept so affixed in such a position that it can he easily read by the persons employed in the mine, factory, or workshop; or the contract is in writing, signed by the workman; and

    (b) the sum to be paid or deducted under the contract in respect of materials, tools or machines, standing room, light, heat, or any other thing, does not exceed, in the case of materials or tools supplied to the workman, the actual or estimated cost thereof to the employer, or in the case of the use of machinery, light, heat, or any other thing in this section mentioned a fair and reasonable rent or allowance, having regard to the all circumstances of the case.

    (2.) An employer shall not make any such deduction or receive any such payment unless—

    (a) the deduction or payment is made in pursuance of, and in accordance with, such a contract as aforesaid; and

    (b) particulars in writing showing the things in respect of which the deduction or payment is made and the amount thereof are supplied to the workman on each occasion when a deduction or payment is made.

    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "gross."
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved, in Sub-section (1), before the words "any other tiling to be done," to insert the words "for and in respect of."
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved, in Paragraph (a), Sub-section (1), to leave out the words—
    "contract is embodied in a printed notice affixed at the pit head, or at the entrance of a factory or workshop,"
    and to insert instead thereof the words—
    "terms of the contract are contained in a printed notice kept constantly affixed at such place or places open to workmen, and in such a position that it may be easily seen, read, and copied by any person whom it affects."
    MR. LIONEL HOLLANDsaid that the question of the sufficiency to constitute a contract of a mere publication by affixing a notice was a matter of such material importance that he thought it right it should be raised again. The principle of the Bill of 1831 and of this Bill as originally introduced was that an employer, if he wished to go outside the provisions of the Act, should only be able to do so by a written agreement with his men. That was a safeguard which the Bill of 1831 established, and hon. Members who objected to its continuance ought at least to produce some specific instances of inconvenience or of injury to trade resulting from its existence. But if the interests of workmen could be safeguarded by any other really adequate method, he should not lay any great stress on the importance of the mere fact that an agreement was in writing. If the employers objected to signed agreements, and another system could be devised which would give adequate security to the position of the workmen, there was no reason why the system of written agreements should not be discarded for a newer method. There was, besides, ample proof in the evidence given before the Labour Commission that the mere requiring of a signed agreement was utterly inoperative and a mere farce. But if the House were not going to insist on a signed agreement, if they were going to alter the traditions of Truck legislation which had existed for 65 years, surely they were not going to make the contract a loss effective one, or give the workmen less effective security than under the existing law. Yet that would be the result of the proposal which the Home Secretary had, he thought somewhat too readily, accepted. It introduced a new principle which had never been incorporated in labour legislation. The only parallel he knew of was in the Common Carriers Act, which allowed a notice to have the force of a contract in the case of certain special articles of special value. Such a proposal was wholly inappropriate to a contract entered into between employer and workman, and to his mind the clause would set a most injurious precedent. It might deprive the workman of the safeguards given him under the Employers' Liability Act. It was intended

    1081
    that the mere fixing of a notice should bind the workman to all the provisions contained in it, even though they had never come to his knowledge. In other words he was to be bound by a contract which was not a contract, but a mere fiction of Parliament. Under the present law, when employers wished to escape the provisions of the Employers' Liability Act by fixing up a notice, they had to prove that that notice had come to the knowledge of the workman. The fact that the workman continued in his employment after the notice had been fixed made it a presumption that he acquiesced; but it was only a presumption, and whether or not there was a binding contract was a matter for legal proof, and for the jury to decide. But by this clause the workman was to be bound by a contract which really only existed in the imagination of Parliament, because there could be no contract unless there were consenting parties, and a man could not consent to a notice he had never seen. He had no wish to harass employers by asking the House to insist on a written agreement if the employers were averse to it; but he did maintain that it was only fair and just and essential to the working of the Act that the workman should be seized of the terms of the agreement he has to enter into, and he thought this sub-section failed to secure that result. He would suggest that this matter might be met by the addition of some words he had on the Paper—namely, after the word "act," to insert—
    "and a printed or written copy of this notice is also delivered by the employer to the workman at the time the contract of employment is made."
    Of course the Home Secretary had not the slightest wish that the position of the workman should be less effectively guarded under this Bill than under the Act of 1831. Of course the objection might be raised that the words he had suggested would make the clause out of line with former clauses, but he imagined that could be got over in another place. He noticed that the hon. Member for North Monmouthshire proposed to meet this point by an Amendment he had down to Clause 6. If the Home Secretary would favourably consider that
    1082
    Amendment he would withdraw his, but he thought the proper place for these words was where he had suggested. The delivery of a copy of the notice ought to be an integral condition of the contract of employment. He hoped the Home Secretary would now or later on consider this matter.
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYthought it was very inconvenient that the House should be discussing a second time what was practically the Amendment disposed of the other night. It was arranged in Grand Committee that, as an alternative, this public notice should be put up for the information of all concerned. He then stated that he would loyally adhere to the decision of the Committee, and he must continue to adhere to it. These clauses must be identical in their form, otherwise the House would be stultifying itself. He saw an enormous advantage in this notice, and that was that the inspectors who went about the works would see at once whether there were any rules and regulations as to fines and so forth which in their opinion were unreasonable. The object of his Amendment was that every workman should be possessed of the fullest information as to the conditions under which he was to work. He hoped that the House would accept his Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. H. H. ASQUTTHsaid that the question was whether the clause sufficiently safeguarded the workmen by bringing their attention to the conditions by a general notice rather than by serving each man with a separate printed notice of the conditions under which he was to work. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to make it compulsory upon every employer to serve each of his workmen individually with a copy of the notice containing the conditions under which he would have to work. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. JAMES KENYONthought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Home Secretary attached far too much importance to the serving of a notice upon each individual workman. The fines to which workmen were subject were very small in amount, and they were put into a box and distributed among the local charities. The proposal of the right hon. and

    1083
    learned Gentleman would put the employer to a large and unnecessary expense. ["Hear, hear!"]
    SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that he had to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary for his promise to favourably consider this proposal when they came to consider Clause 6. ["Hear."]
    MR. G. WHITELEYalso considered that the fines inflicted upon the workmen were very small, and were distributed among the sick or disposed of in other charitable ways.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. McKENNA MR. McKENNA moved, in paragraph (b) Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "actual or estimated." He said it was a general practice in bookkeeping for an employer to add to the net cost of an article a certain amount for office expenditure and for capital expenditure—perhaps 10 per cent. on each. Consequently the estimated cost was not the real cost, and the ambiguity of these words "actual or estimated" led one to the conclusion that neither the real cost nor the estimated cost was the one intended.
    MR. LOUGH,in supporting the Amendment, expressed a hope that the Home Secretary would not go back on the intimation he gave that he was willing to omit these words. If they adopted the Amendment, it was quite easy to make Clause 2 agree with it in another place. These words appeared to him to be perfectly needless, and to go a good deal further than the right hon. Gentleman intended they should go.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid this was really rather a different matter from Clause 2. It did not stand on the same footing as the words in Subsection (d) Clause 2. He ventured to point out the necessity of these words when the matter was under discussion in Grand Committee. The House would observe that it was the case of materials or tools supplied to a workman. It might very likely be that the actual or estimated cost could not be ascertained absolutely. It might be that the materials or tools had been bought long before, and it would be unfair to the workman that they should put upon him
    1084
    the actual cost in cases in which the actual amount which was going to be charged could not be found. He thought it rather better to have the words left in,
    MR. ASQUITHsaid that he thought there was a clear distinction between this clause and the preceding one. It would be impossible in many cases to say the actual damage, and he would recommend his hon. Friend not to persist in his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved, in paragraph (b) Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "allowance," and to insert instead thereof the word "charge."
    Amendment agreed to; clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 5,—

    RECOVERY OF PAYMENTS OR DEDUCTIONS.
    Any workman or shop assistant may recover any sum deducted by or paid to his employer contrary to this Act, provided that an action for recovery be raised within three months from the date of the deduction or payment sought to be recovered, and that where he has consented to or acquiesced in any such deduction or payment, he shall only recover the excess which has been deducted or paid over the amount, if any, which the court may find to have been fair and reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved to leave out the words "an action for recovery be raised within three," and to insert instead thereof the words "proceedings for such recovery are commenced within six."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. McKENNA MR. McKENNA moved to leave out the words—
    "and that where he has consented to or acquiesced in any such deduction or payment, he shall only recover the excess which has been deducted or paid over the amount, if any, which the court may find to have been fair and reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case."
    These words, he said, were clearly contradictory of the whole spirit of the

    1085
    Truck Acts. As he understood the Acts, they were passed because it was believed that the workman was not a free party to the contract, and if he was not a free party to a contract he was equally not a free party in his acquiescence or consent to any deduction which was made in his wages. His main objection to these words was that they gave legal recognition to a contract declared illegal. An employer if he contracted to deduct or deducted any amount from the wages paid to his workmen was committing an illegal act unless he did so under the terms provided for by this Bill. The employer having committed an illegal act was, under these words, allowed to retain to himself some portion of the benefit of that illegal act. That was practically an incitement to an employer to break the terms of this Bill. Every incentive ought to be placed in the way of the workman to see that the provisions of the Act were carried out, and every incentive ought to be removed from the employer for breaking the provisions of the Bill. If this provision was left in this clause, in nine cases out of 10 the workman would have no incentive to bring a breach of the Act before the inspector.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALhoped the hon. Member would not press this Amendment. He thought the provision represented what was fair between masters and workmen under certain contracts. The case was this: It was, on the face of the clause, that a workman had consented or acquiesced in a deduction of the payment. It would be a question of fact which the Judge must find that in fact the workman had consented to or acquiesced in a deduction of the payment. He went to the Court, and, of course, the law was that the master was wrong and he could not succeed. But he thought it would be an unwise thing that a workman should have the temptation of hanging back, having consented, for a long time, and then coming into Court and getting the whole of the deduction. The outside that justice demanded was that the parties should be put in the position authorised by the law. If he thought there was anything in the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman that the workman would be thereby induced not to bring the matter to the notice of the
    1086
    inspector, he would hesitate in recommending these words, but it seemed to him that exactly the opposite inference would operate in his mind. The right course was that the parties should be put in the position in which they ought to have been put had they been fully alive to what their respective rights were at the time of making the contract. It was not the case that these words were a legal recognition of a contract declared illegal.
    SIR C. DILKEsaid that from the facts that came before the Labour Commission, it was clear that the provision would not affect the larger employers of labour so much as the great number of small employers, many of whom made money out of the practice.
    MR. W. R. BOUSFIELDsaid a large number of representatives of the workmen were present at the meetings of the Grand Committee when the Bill was considered, but no objection whatever was raised by them to the provision.
    MR. McKENNAasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 6,—

    PRODUCTION OF CONTRACT.
    (1.) Every person who has made any contract purporting or intending to operate as a contract under this Act, shall, on demand in writing by one of Her Majesty's inspectors of factories or of mines, produce the contract or a true copy thereof at any convenient time and place to he named by the inspector, and the inspector shall be at liberty to take a copy of the same or of any part thereof, and any workman or shop assistant who is party to any such contract shall he entitled on request to obtain from his employer free of charge a copy of the contract or of the document in which it is embodied.
    (2.) If any person fails to comply with this section he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding forty shillings.
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "person," ("Every person") and to insert instead thereof "employer."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. McKENNA MR. McKENNA moved in Sub-section (1) after the words "any part thereof

    1087
    and," to insert the words "the employer of."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. McKENNA MR. McKENNA moved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words—
    "shall be entitled on request to obtain from his employer free of charge a copy of the contract or of the document in which it is embodied,"
    and to insert instead thereof, the words—
    "shall at the time of making the contract give the workmen or shop assistants a copy of the contract."
    He said it was unnecessary to detain the House, as the matter involved had been already amply discussed.
    MR. G. WHITELEYsaid he thought the Amendment was entirely unnecessary and entirely unobjectionable. [Laughter.] Employers had no objection, could have no objection, to a copy of the contract being given to their workmen, but was it really necessary if ether conditions were carried out? It seemed to him that some people rated the intelligence of the workmen very low indeed. ["Hear, hear!"] The contracts were to be posted, up at the entrance to the factory or workplace, where the workpeople could not fail to see them, and to suggest that in these days of Board Schools the workpeople could not read, and would not be sufficiently alive to their own interests as not to read the notices, was to do them an injustice. ["Hear, hear!" and Laughter.] He thought there was some force in the view expressed the other day by the hon. Member for Belfast—that the publication of those contracts in the face of the world was in itself some guarantee that they would be fair and reasonable. ["Hear, hear!"] During the last 24 hours he had discussed the matter with two prominent Trades Union leaders, and they told him that while they had looked upon the terms of the original Bill as impracticable and unworkable, as many hon. Members had done, they considered the present Bill, as amended, eminently workable. ["Hear hear!"]
    MR. ASQUITHsaid that for a large number of people—both employers and
    1088
    workmen—protection of the kind afforded by this Bill was doubtless unnecessary, in consequence of their excellent organisations, and of the respect the parties entertained for one another. But the House was legislating by this Measure chiefly for people who were unorganised, such as those employed in shops and small factories. ["Hear, hear!"] The Bill was intended for those who had not the protection which they ought to have. ["Hear, hear!"]
    SIR C. DILKEsaid the Bill now covered the case of the shop-assistant as well as that of the workman, and that through the acceptance of this Amendment they would part with the Bill under happier auspices than they would otherwise have done.
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that as the House desired it, he moved to add after the words last inserted the words—
    "a workman or a shop assistant who is a party to any such contract shall be entitled, on request, to obtain from his employer, free of charge, a copy of the contract or of the notice containing its terms."
    MR. JOHN BURNSappealed to the right hon. Gentleman to strike out the words "on request." It might appear to him to be a very simple matter but———
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,interposing, said they had already given the workman a copy. Surely he could go and ask for another.
    MR. BURNSwas glad he had made a mistake, for it was now clear that it was obligatory on the part of the master to give the workman a copy in the first instance, and on request to give him another.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. PICKERSGILLproposed to add after the words last inserted the words—
    "(2) Every employer who has made any contract purporting or intending to operate as a contract under Section 1 of this Act shall keep a register of deductions or payments, and shall enter therein every deduction or payment for or in respect of any fine purporting to be made under any such contract, specifying the

    1089
    amount and the nature of the act or omission in respect of which the fine was imposed, and this register shall he at all times open to inspection by one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Factories or of Mines."
    The safeguard he proposed applied to lines only, and not to the other deductions sanctioned by the Bill. He limited it to fines because he thought it might be made clear that fines were regarded as standing on a footing altogether different from the other classes of deductions, and that there were not a few Members who would be glad to abolish fines altogether. However, that course had not been adopted, and they were in some respects going to give a new lease to the practice of fining. Before 1889 it was at least doubtful whether fining was not illegal, and since then the practice of fining had occupied a very uncertain and ill-assured position. Now, by the Bill, they were going not to legalise, but to regularise the practice of fining, and whilst it was perfectly true they were proposing to impost; certain restrictions upon fining, they would, at the same time, raise the practice of fining so restricted to a position which it had never yet occupied on the statute-book. That being so, it was obviously very desirable that they should take all reasonable safeguards against a practice which was beyond doubt liable to abuse. He proposed, therefore, that every employer should be required to keep a register in which he should enter every fine which was imposed, specifying the amount of the fine and the nature of the act or omission in respect of which the fine was imposed. What objection could there be to the proposal? They need not consider the case of the bad employers. they would not find any advocates or defenders in the House. But it had been said on behalf of good employers that fining was essential to the maintenance of discipline amongst large bodies of workmen. He did not admit that view at all, but accepting it for the moment, he replied that the entry of a fine in a book which was required by statute to be kept would certainly not detract from the impressiveness of the effect of the fine. If he said that the keeping of a register was impracticable, he should say that if fines were so frequent and so lightly regarded both by employer and employed, they
    1090
    had the clearest evidence that the practice of fining must be a most inefficient instrument in the maintenance of discipline.
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid the keeping of the register would entail a great deal of trouble to the employer, and he did not think that, on a poll, the workmen would be found to care much for the proposal.
    SIR C. DILKEregarded the Amendment as one worthy of more consideration than the Home Secretary had given to it. Such registers were kept in Germany and in other countries, and he understood that many of the best employers here kept fine-books so that they could see that the fines did not exceed a certain amount.
    MR. GEOFFREY DRAGEsaid that it appeared to him that if the Amendment were adopted, it would be possible to obtain a Return from the Home Office of the amount and nature of the fines. If the amount was found to be large, and the workmen thought they suffered a great injustice, it would be possible for Parliament to pass a law such as existed in Germany and Austria, limiting the amount of fines to one day's or to a half-day's wages. ["Hear, hear!"] If, on the contrary, the amount of fines proved to be as insignificant as they knew it was in many trades, and as they hoped it would prove in other trades, it would be for them to consider whether it would not be well to abolish fines altogether. To attempt to abolish at a stroke of the pen a system so long established, and which had some good points, was sure to fail. He could have wished that right hon. Gentlemen on either side had gone a little further and excluded "deductions" from the Amendment. He believed that deductions as much as fines tended to embitter the relations between employers and employed. There was further this important consideration—if was impossible for any house manager to make the two ends meet on an income which was uncertain. He made an appeal, which was never made to that House in vain, on behalf of the women and children.
    MR. JOHN BURNSthought that a register of fines should be kept. He believed that at Whiteley's they found it desirable to dispense with fines, because

    1091
    it was discovered that, with 3,000 or 4,000 people, to keep a register of fines was a very laborious task. That experience had taught that firm to do away with fines altogether, and if a large firm of that description could manage without fines, he did not see why smaller firms could not do away with them. If they could not do that the next best thing was to register them. Why did he urge that? A workman or woman might be subjected to persecution; he or she was "spotted," as it was called. There was no defence unless there was a register of fines. If a man complained that he was being persecuted, his persecutor escaped in this way: He might go to the employer who would say, "Oh, I cannot be bothered," but if the man could say to the master, "I would advise you to look at the register of fines, and see the trivial offences for which I have been fined," the employer would at once, by looking at the list, be able to diagnose and ascertain whether there was any breach of the discipline of the factory. ["Hear, hear!"] He might give an instance of a young person being fined 2s. 6d. at the discretion of the shopwalker or buyer for "gossiping." A girl might be disposed to look at a young man longer than she should. He reciprocated that. [Laughter.] The young man wanted a pair of gloves at 1s. 10d., and in such a case the fines might be piled on. The register of such fines would concentrate attention, so that the fines would become of a purely disciplinary industrial character. He appealed to the Home Secretary to round off the Bill by making it obligatory to have a register of fines.
    MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he considered that the Bill placed a difficulty in the way of indiscriminate fines. He thought that the Bill went a long way in the right direction. He had been acquainted with workshops like the hon. Member for Battersea, but not to the same extent, and he thought he would agree there were two classes of British workmen—one who cared for the interests of the employer and the other who did not care a rap. There was no practical way of checking the conduct of the latter class except by fine. It was said there was the alternative of dismissal, but that was very harsh. If
    1092
    every fine was to be entered in the books it would give infinite trouble.
    MR. J. W. CROMBIEsuggested that the fines should be turned into a fund for the benefit of the workpeople.
    MR. LOUGHsupported the Amendment, and denied that it was impossible to do without fines. He thought that if it was worth while keeping an analogous record in the Courts, that it was worth while doing so in a private business.
    MR. FORTESCUE FLANNERYappealed to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to accept this Amendment. He did so on the same grounds on which the hon. Member for South Hackney had opposed the Amendment—namely, that in the best regulated establishments in this country there was in actual operation a system of putting down fines in books and bringing those books to the knowledge of the responsible persons in the factory. ["Hear, hear!"] It was in the small and irregular establishments, where there was petty tyranny and oppression of the humblest class of workers, unskilled men, women, and children, that this system did not operate. The Amendment would be of great advantage to the labouring community, and he thought this was the general opinion on both sides of the House. ["Hear, hear!"]
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid that when he opposed the Amendment he did so because he feared it would cast a vexatious burden on the employers of this country and would not achieve those ends which they desired to achieve. As, however, there as a general feeling in favour of the Amendment, he would accept it. ["Hear, hear!"] One or two verbal Amendments might be necessary.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. JOHN BRIGG MR. JOHN BRIGG (York, W. R., Keighley) moved, after the words last inserted, to insert the following subsection:—
    "3 A contract or any documents under this Act, may he in writing or print, or partly in writing and partly in print,"
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYagreed with the object of the hon. Member, and was quite willing to make it perfectly clear that this covered writing. He understood, however, that under the Interpretations Act it would mean writing or print. He would take care to make it clear.
    SIR C. DILKEsaid this matter was rather fully debated in the Grand Committee, and the late Home Secretary and other lawyers thought it would make the matter less clear to insert these words. It appeared to be clear under the Interpretation Act that that which the hon. Member sought to make clear would be the law.
    MR. BRIGGasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 7,—

    EXEMPTION OF CONTRACT FROM STAMP DUTY.
    A contract entered into in any part of the United Kingdom under the provisions of this Art shall not he liable to stamp duty.
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved to leave out the words "in any part of the United Kingdom," as he thought, they were unnecessary, and would have a restricting effect.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The remaining clauses having been agreed to,
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYasked the House to agree to the Third Reading of the Bill.
    MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid that he had been in communication with the officials of the Northern Counties' Amalgamated Association of Weavers, who said that they had got what they wanted in the Home Secretary's clause, and were perfectly satisfied with the Bill as amended. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. J. SAMUELthought the Measure would have a most undesirable effect on many of the artisans of this country. The cotton spinners were satisfied because they could contract themselves out of this Bill, and therefore complimented the Government.
    MR. G. WHITELEYsaid they were in the same position as every other trade. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. J. SAMUELsaid there were thousands of workmen who were not, as powerful trade societies were, able to defend themselves, and this Bill would, in his opinion, have a very injurious effect on such men.
    Bill read the Third time amid cheers, and passed.

    UGANDA RAILWAY BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
    Clause 1,—

    ISSUE OF MONEY OUT OF CONSOLIDATED FUND FOR PURPOSES OF ACT.
    (1.) The Treasury shall issue out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof such sums not exceeding in the whole the sum of three million pounds as may be required by a Secretary of State for defraying the costs of the construction of the Uganda Railway, whether incurred before or after the passing of this Act.
    (2.) Before any money is issued under this section, the Secretary of State shall submit to the Treasury an estimate, with such details as may he required by them, of the expenditure and period for and within which it is proposed to expend that money.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked whether the sum of three millions which this Bill empowered the Treasury to spend involved the cost of any military expedition which might be necessary for the protection of the workmen if they were embarrassed by the native tribes.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas understood to say that such cost was not included in the three millions, nor was it anticipated that it would be required.
    MR. HERBERT LEWISasked if it would be possible to carry a railway through this country without having a very strong protective force.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that was shown by the

    1095
    fact that at the present moment surveyors were employed along the whole route.
    MR. R. W. PERKSsaid they had had no accurate information as to why the sum asked for was fixed at three and not two or live millions. They were told in the, Report that by substituting a 3 ft. gauge for a 3 ft. 0 in gauge, by reducing the weight of the rails from 50 to 35 lbs., and by other economies they could obtain their object for a sum of about.£750,000, plus the cost of a road. If they adopted the Reports of those gentlemen, they might reasonably come to the conclusion that the Vote of £3,000,000 was far too much. But, on the other hand, if they based their estimate on the cost of the construction of railways in South Africa or in India, they must come to the conclusion that the expenditure must exceed £3,000,000. The Under Secretary for the Colonies, in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, referred to railways which had been constructed in Ceylon, Trinidad, and Western Australia, under the auspices of the Colonial Office, and which the right hon. Gentleman considered might be accepted as guides in this South African venture. But he ventured to say that those railways were mere child's play, were toys, compared with a railway through the unknown, and uninhabited, and hot region of tropical Africa. He therefore thought the Committee should be informed how the Government had arrived at £3,000,000 as the probable cost of the railway. Then he would like to know who was in control—who was responsible? A sort of nebulous Government authority had been created. Men had been selected from various Departments to form a composite body who were entrusted with the expenditure of this huge sum. But who was responsible? Who was going to present 10 Parliament the detailed Reports of the progress of the work and its cost which ought to be presented to Parliament? It was true that the Treasury might give the House any information they chose, but there was nothing in the Bill requiring the managers of tin undertaking to submit to the Treasury, periodically, information that would have to be given to a commercial body before they would pay from month to
    1096
    month the necessary amounts for the line. In dealing with public money they ought to see that it was as carefully expended as their own money in connection with their own private commercial ventures. Again, they had no security as to the time this railway would be finished. They could not get out of a labourer employed by the Government as contractor the same amount of work that would be got from him if employed by a private contractor, and the gentlemen at the head of the undertaking had, like the labourer, no incentive to complete the work. Everyone in the employment of the Government night say, "I am working for Her Majesty's Government, which has a bottomless purse." He thought the railway one of the wildest commercial ventures ever submitted to the consideration of the House, and the £3,000,000 or more that were to be spent upon it were intrusted to a new spending department created for the purpose, which, of course, had given no guarantee that it was entitled to this confidence. He had not one word to say against the principle of the Bill. But what he was anxious to secure was that this railway should be cheaply and effectively constructed, that periodical Reports as to its progress should be presented to Parliament, and that it should be completed within a specified time.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he entirely sympathised with the views expressed in the last sentence of the hon. Gentleman. The Government wanted the railway cheaply and effectively constructed; they wanted to have full information in regard to its construction given to Parliament during the time of construction; and they wanted it finished as early as might be. He would undertake on the part of the Treasury that detailed information in regard to the estimates for any part of the line, or in regard to the actual cost of any part of the line, should he demanded from the Committee intrusted with its construction and he from time to time presented to Parliament.
    MR. PERKS: That quite satisfies me.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX-CHEQUERsaid that, as the hon. Member was aware, a Memorandum had

    1097
    been presented to Parliament giving in a businesslike form the estimated cost of the 100 miles of the line which had been completely surveyed, and fuller details would be furnished when the work was done. A similar course would be followed in regard to other parts of the line during the progress of the undertaking. The construction of the line would be controlled by the Committee just as similar works in India and the colonies were frequently controlled by Boards of Directors in London. The Committee was composed of men of the greatest experience in such matters, and an engineer of special capacity in such work was on the spot superintending the construction of the line. The staff of the Crown Agents for the Colonies, who were accustomed to such work, would be employed in ordering the necessary supplies which would be sent out from home and in managing all the details. Sir Montagu Ommanney would give his services gratuitously, and a commission of only 1 per cent. would be charged by the Crown Agents on the actual cost of the stores and materials shipped. If the hon. Member would read the long-Report presented to Parliament in 1893 on this subject he would And that the line had been surveyed far more carefully than he imagined, and the nature of the work was fairly compared with the work on similar railways in India running through the same kind of country. It was shown that the actual cost of those Indian railways was in one case less per mile than the estimate for this railway, which was based on the best information the Committee could obtain. The Government had taken every precaution that the money voted by Parliament should be usefully and economically laid out; and they were convinced, after the careful inquiry by the Committee appointed by the late Government, that, having regard to the peculiar circumstances of this line, it would not only be much cheaper but much better, politically speaking, for the success of the whole undertaking that it should be in the hands of the Government rather than in those of a firm of contractors.
    MR. LEWISsaid that the light hon. Gentleman had not explained how it was that the original estimate of
    1098
    £1,750, 000 had been increased to £3,000,000.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that the first estimate was cut down to the lowest possible sum. The gauge was smaller; the weight of the rails was 35lb. per yard instead of 501b.—a reduction which sacrificed efficiency to economy; there was no provision for ballasting the line; and all the provisions for rolling-stock, station buildings, etc., were cut down to a point which was certainly not consistent with efficiency. That was how the estimate of £1,750,000 was arrived at, and hon. Members would see that by increasing the gauge, increasing the weight of rails, allowing for proper ballasting, rolling-stock, and buildings that estimate must be largely increased. On the recommendation of the Committee a considerable sum had also been added to provide for a possibly greater expenditure on a part of the region traversed which was believed to be liable to floods.
    MR. LEWISadmitted that if no allowance were made in the original estimate for ballasting the line, it was obviously untrustworthy. Rut it was very necessary that the expenses should be cut down to the lowest point consistent with efficiency. There was no trade to be expected such as would justify an expensive line; and £3,000,000 largely exceeded the necessities of the case.
    MR. PERKSsaid that the Report presented to the House in 1895, and signed by those who were still in charge of the scheme, stated that rails weighing 35 lbs. a yard would permit of locomotives which would drag the heaviest traffic to be expected up the steepest gradient. All the big lump sums quoted in the estimate had an "etcetera" at the end; and it was obvious that the bulk of the expenditure came under the "etcetera." The Committee ought to be supplied with the same detailed information which would ordinarily be given by engineers in constructing a railway.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESthought that this was a dangerous adventure. £3,000,000 were to be placed at the absolute disposal of the Secretary of State, in order to convert him into a constructor of railways. He did not

    1099
    believe that even the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs would make a reputation as a railway constructor. He was surprised to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer talk as if there had been complete surveys of this line. In the Paper issued in the present year by the Secretary to the Treasury, it was stated that throughout there was an absence of solid information about the line.—
    "It became evident to the Committee after examination that detailed surveys might modify the conclusion of the able officers who surveyed the route in 1892."
    And again:—
    "The reports of the chief Engineer have shown that the ascent from the coast to the tableland will be more expensive than was anticipated. Thence through broken country to the Vaal Ranges, the estimates are thought to be approximately correct."
    Did any human being ever construct a railway on estimates and surveys "thought to be approximately correct?"
    Then they came to this:—
    "Consideration of recent reports on the meteorological and climatic conditions raises doubts regarding the sufficiency of bridging allowed for."
    But bridging was one of the most important elements in the whole thing. And then, finally, as regarded the difficulties of the country after the Mau range was reached, they were told that there was an absence of detailed surveys. Putting all these things together, it appeared to him that this was the most monstrous adventure the House was ever asked to embark upon. ["Hear, hear!"] He could not conceive anything more unsatisfactory than handing over to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the construction of a railway into a country of which absolutely nothing was known.
    DR. CLARKdid not think the class of railway now proposed, which seemed to be similar to what was found in Egypt and Rajputana, was the one they ought to build there at all. The original scheme for a light railway was a much better one. The rails were simply fished together, and could carry in their own weight as much traffic as would require to be carried. The heavy railway would be much more costly. If they were
    1100
    making this railway on ordinary commercial principles they would make a survey for 100 miles, they would know all the gradients and the water-courses, and would have all the information, and then they would get an estimate from contractors as to the cost of that portion. And so on, portion by portion, and in that way they would vote each year the money required. Under the plan proposed, the native labour would be very costly. There would not be the same supervision as there would supposing they had a contractor to see that economy was observed. The board of three or four gentlemen who would meet were in London, knew very little of what was done out in Africa, and would be entirely dependent upon Reports sent home. He expected that £3,000,000 was not a moiety of what the actual cost would be. They would not be able to make these railways as cheaply in Africa as in India—at least, they never had been made as cheaply hitherto. They would get off cheap if the railway was built for six or seven millions. He supposed the idea in making this railway was to carry it down until it met the Egyptian railway, and then they would have the same gauge from Alexandria to Mombasa. He was very doubtful about the whole enterprise.
    MR. PERKScalled attention to the railway gauge, and pointed out that in a Report of April, 1896, the gauge of one metre, or 3 ft. 3 in., was recommended upon identically the same ground that 3 ft. 6 ins. was recommended in the earlier report. As the latter gauge was that of the South African and Egyptian railways, would it not be better to adopt the original suggestion and increase the width of the rails to 3 ft. 6 in.?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORCE CURZON,)said that the Government had decided that the 3 ft. gauge was too small, and the selection therefore lay between 3 ft. 3 in. and 3 ft. 6 in. The considerations which finally decided the Committee to select the metre gauge were that it was a gauge which had been adopted over between 7,000 and 8,000 miles of Indian railways; and it would be a great advantage to have the use of a common rolling-stock. They also

    1101
    thought that the 3 ft. 6 in. gauge was rather a heavier line than was contemplated. The question as to the difference between the Reports of the Committees at different times was a difference between a light railway and a more solid and substantial railway. Stress had been laid on the uncertainty with regard to the surveys, especially in connection with the mountainous regions. A survey of the country had been made by the first survey party, but of course, in common with all preliminary surveys, it was open to amendment. As to the contract system, he stated that in many parts of the Empire they had abandoned the system of constructing railways by contract, substituting the Departmental system, notably in Ceylon. There had been a distinct economy in the supersession of the contract by the Departmental system.
    MR. PERKSsaid that in the estimate of stations the Government had added to the ordinary expenditure the sum necessary for converting them into places of refuge and making the station officials take the place of military men.
    MR. CURZONsaid that further information rendered it unlikely that those fortifications would be necessary.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTSasked whether the working expenses would include any sum for depreciation and repairs. He thought that the Report was rather optimistic. Renewals and repairs would be a very heavy item in a country of this kind. He understood that a detailed survey would only be made as the work progressed. That was not satisfactory. The same course ought to be followed as was followed in the case of the construction of a railway in this country. Here there were always complete plans, with a complete estimate, and with complete specifications. The Government were proceeding in a, blindfold, haphazard, and happy-go-lucky way. They had been told that only last week someone who had been engaged in surveying the ground had said that it might be possible to discover a new route. Apparently, therefore, after the line had been carried over some 20 miles, a better route might be found. Not a single inch of railway ought to be constructed before the best possible route had been discovered. In the times of the Railway
    1102
    mania no wilder scheme than this was entered upon.
    MR. LLOYD - GEORGEsaid that no board of railway directors would dream of embarking upon such an enterprise as this upon such scanty information as the Foreign Office possessed. In the Memorandum that had been issued they found the following statements:—
    "It became evident to the Committee (a Committee of experts) on further examination that detailed surveys might modify the conclusions of the able officers who had surveyed the route in 1892. The reports of the chief engineer have shown that the ascent from the coast to the tableland will be more expensive than was anticipated."
    Each successive report modified or enlarged its predecessor, but every one of them had this peculiarity—that it increased the estimate. If they were going to make a railway through a swamp, they ought to know something about its nature. Then there was the difficulty caused by floods. These were points on which definite conclusions ought to be come to before money was expended. The optimism of the reports was extraordinary. The idea that 15,000,000 passengers would travel over this line in the course of a year was preposterous. He wanted to know what would be the cost of policing this line. The Masai were a very warlike people, and their attitude towards the line was a matter of extreme uncertainty. Supposing that they should be hostile, would the cost of defending the workmen and of policing the railway be included in the three millions, or would that sum merely cover the cost of laying down the line?
    Question put, "That Clause 1 stand I part of the Bill.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 125; Noes, 35.—(Division List, No. 357.)
    On the return of the CHAIEMAN of WAYS and MEANS, after the usual interval, the Committee considered—
    Clause 2,—

    BORROWING FOR PURPOSES OF ACT AND ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT.
    (1.) The Treasury may, if they think lit, at any time for the purpose of providing money for the issue of sums out of the Consolidated

    1103
    Fund under this Act, or repaying to that fund all or any part of the sums so issued, borrow money by means of terminable annuities for such period not exceeding thirty years from the passing of this Act as the Treasury may fix and all sums so borrowed shall be paid into the Exchequer.
    (2.) The said annuities shall be paid out of the moneys annually provided by Parliament for the foreign and colonial services; and, if those moneys are insufficient, shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof, but shall not be payable as part of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt.
    (3.) The Secretary of State shall in every financial year cause to be laid out and laid before the House of Commons an account, in the form required by the Treasury, of the money expended and borrowed and the securities created under this Act, and the accounts of expenditure under this Act shall be audited and reported upon by the Comptroller and Auditor General as appropriation accounts in manner directed by the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1860.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "thirty years," and to insert instead the words "fifteen years"so as to limit the period during which the terminable annuities by which the money borrowed should be repaid should run to 15 years.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that for obvious reasons the term of 30 years was preferable to one of 15 years. He could not accept the Amendment.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether these terminable annuities were to be met out of money annually voted by Parliament.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied in the affirmative. Each year the annuities would have to be met by money voted by Parliament.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESthought that if the railway made a profit, it ought to be paid into the Treasury in reduction of the charge.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNERasked why we should benefit posterity to this enormous extent by shortening the term of the annuities?
    MR. PERKS,in supporting the Amendment, observed that there was an important reason why the railway should be paid for in fifteen years, and that was that it would afford a good
    1104
    object lesson to the people of this country as to the danger of speculating in this wild way with public money. If under the auspices of the Government, they were going to plunge into investments, as the Government called them, but which were really wild speculations, because they were afraid if they did not do so some other nation might plunge into them, then the sooner the people were brought to their senses by having to bear the onus of this rash method of procedure, the better it would be. It would, therefore, be preferable instead of spreading this expenditure over thirty years to spread it over fifteen, so that a necessary and salutary lesson might the sooner be brought home to the people of this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in defence of the proposal of the Government, had compared this railway with the works approved recently under the Naval Works Act. But these latter were carried out in civilised districts where they had carefully-prepared estimates. They were told that this system of thirty-years was always chosen in the case of permanent works. But was any railway constructed, in a tropical region, of iron bridges substituted for concrete bridges, a permanent work? Such a railway was not even a permanent work in their own country where the climatic conditions were not so severe, so that much less must it be so in a district subject to floods and where there would be very little user of the railway. The more a line was used, the more traffic it got, the more permanent it became in its character, for it received more attention. No one could contend that the railway would be, a permanent work in the nature of those executed under the Naval Works Act, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested. The revenue of the railway from Government traffic, according to the statement of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs on Monday night, would only be £6,000 a year, so that while the railway was going to cost £3,000,000 of money the receipts from Government traffic would only be £6,000 a year——
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I rise to a point of Order. I submit that on this clause there is no question of the merits or demerits of the railway. It is a mere question of the

    1105
    number of years the terminable annuity should run.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: That is so. The hon. Member is not entitled upon this Amendment to discuss the whole, merits of the Bill, the principle of which has been already passed by the House.
    MR. PERKSwas merely pointing out one of the reasons why he thought the period should be reduced from 30 to 15 years. In 30 years, probably none of the railway would be in existence, and it was not fair to saddle posterity with the cost of a railway which would, in their time, probably have disappeared or have been stolen.
    MR. LEWISsupported the Amendment. There was nothing which gave governing bodies whether they were local governing bodies or Imperial—a greater temptation to extravagance than that a loan should be spread over a considerable period of time. He ventured to think if the time was restricted in this case the Government would be acting wisely in so restricting it. The people of this country would then have their responsibility brought home to them in regard to the construction of the railway. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the Naval Works Bill in support of the argument he desired to bring before the House. But those Naval Works were really of a permanent character which would last for centuries while this railway was a very different thing owing to accidents, floods or unforeseen circumstances which to a very much larger extent would be liable to attach to it, therefore the term ought to be shortened. In future their Imperial responsibilities were more likely to increase than diminish. If they were to carry out the policy of which the construction of this railway was the forerunner, then he said their responsibilities in various parts of the world would largely increase, they should require to draw more upon their resources in the future than they had done in the past, and the sooner they got rid of responsibilities of this kind the better.
    MR. J. CALDWELLcontended that while 30 years was looked upon as a reasonable period over which to extend the repayment of loans in the case of permanent works in this country, it was much too long when dealing with
    1106
    a work of this kind which, having regard to the nature of its construction, and the climatic influences to which it would be exposed could not be described as permanent. This line would be subject to sun, to storms, and to the interference of insects, as was the case with railways in India. In India they could not lay wooden sleepers along a railway simply because they were liable to be eaten up and destroyed. That was an element to betaken into consideration. Again, iron bridges on a, railway were liable to deterioration from the effect of excessive heat. The permanency of an iron bridge in a tropical country was much shorter lived than a similar bridge in this country. Then in a tropical climate iron rails were liable to get twisted and out of condition. He thought it a safe and wise provision, from the novelty of the case and from the peculiar circumstances of the railway there, where they had no material to judge as to the permanency of the works, that they should fix the period at 15 years in the meantime. That did not prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer afterwards, if matters turned out well, from moving to extend the time to 30 years if necessary. Supposing this railway carried no goods; supposing the railway to be carried off by the natives? If they adopted the Bill as it stood, they would have placed themselves in the position of having spread the payment over a period of 30 years. He thought that was most unreasonable. He thought the Government should show their faith in the success of this railway by agreeing to repay the money within the 15 years.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that the Committee had agreed that £3,000,000 should be advanced to the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department. Undoubtedly the best way of raising the money for this purpose was by terminable annuities for not exceeding 30 years. If they reduced the maximum term from 30 years to 15 they would not at all affect the principle of the Bill. They would simply tie the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and prevent him from raising the money in the best way. He would suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he rose at the same time as the hon. Member

    1107
    for the purpose of asking leave to withdraw the Amendment. He simply wanted to raise a protest.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES,in order to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an explanation on one or two points, moved an Amendment providing that a detailed account of the expenditure by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should be supplied to the Treasury. Sub-section (3) of the clause provided that the Secretary of State should, in every financial year, cause to be laid before the House of Commons an account in the form required by the Treasury. He might remind the Committee that the Secretary of State was not an accountant—[cries of "Divide!"]—and that, consequently, he would require some direction as to the sort of account he was to deliver. [Renewed cries of "Divide!"] In fact, he doubted whether the Foreign Office could provide an accountant who could pass an examination in book-keeping by double entry. [Ironical cheers.] The importance of the matter lay in the fact that they had placed£3,000,000 absolutely at the disposal of the Secretary of State, and it was eminently necessary that the accounts to be furnished to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, through him, to the House should be proper and detailed accounts. As the clause stood, all the Secretary of State need do was to say that he had received £2,000,000 and had spent £2,000,000 on this railway. [Loud cries of "Divide, divide!"] He was not inclined to sit down under this interruption, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would observe in his private interruptions some of the courtesy he observed in his public capacity, he would facilitate Debate. [Ironical cheers and cries of "Divide!"] This clause, as it stood, did not require that any details should appear in the account at all. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be ready to explain that he intended to insist on a detailed account. If the right hon. Gentleman told him that that was what he meant, and that he and the House would be provided with a detailed account of the expenditure, he should
    1108
    be quite satisfied and should withdraw his Amendment. [Ironical cheers.]
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,who was received with loud cheers, said he was not in the habit of saying in private anything he was not prepared to repeat in the House. [Cheers.] He interrupted because the hon. Member was talking absolute nonsense. [Cheers.] The hon. Member stated to the Committee that under this clause the Secretary of State might, if he chose, certify an expenditure of £1,000,000 on the one side, and the receipt of £1,000,000 on the other, and that that would be sufficient for the account provided for by this clause. That was absolute nonsense. [Cheers.] The clause provided that the account should be made out in the form required by the Treasury. He had already stated, at a time when the hon. Member was not in the House, in reply to an hon. Member opposite, that the Treasury would be most careful to provide a detailed form of account, which should be laid, not only before the Treasury, but before Parliament afterwards. [Cheers.]
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES,who spoke amid loud and continuous cries of "Nonsense" and "Divide," said the right hon. Gentleman had been pleased to say that his description of the clause was nonsense, but the right hon. Gentleman had really confirmed that description. He persisted in saying that, so far as the clause was concerned, there was nothing whatever in it to require the Secretary of State to deliver a detailed account. [Cries of "Divide!"] The right hon. Gentleman had also been pleased to say that he never stated anything in private which he was not prepared to say in public. He did not dispute that, but, when the right hon. Gentleman said he had misdescribed the clause, he proved that it was not a misdescription at all by now telling him that he was prepared to give an account. [Loud laughter and cries of "Divide!"]
    MR. PERKSthought it would be well to present the information in regard to the various items of cost on this railway in the form usually presented in the construction of railways, and suggested that the Government should consult the engineers of the railway on the point.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that was quite his idea

    1109
    of the way in which the information should be presented.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time to-morrow.

LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL [H.L.]
As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN moved after Clause 3, to insert the following Clause which was read a First time:—

LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL [H.L.]

  PENALTIES.
  "A breach of any bye-law or regulation made under this Act may on summary conviction he punished by a line not exceeding ten pounds."
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
  MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELL MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELL (Devonshire, Tavistock) moved to insert after Clause 1, the following Clause:—

  REGULATIONS AS TO LIGHTS.
  (1.) During the period between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise, the person in charge of a light locomotive shall carry attached thereto a lamp so constructed and placed as to exhibit a light in the direction in which the locomotive is proceeding, and so lighted and kept lighted as to afford adequate means of signalling the approach or position of the locomotive.
  "(2) If any person contravenes this section he shall be liable on summary conviction to a hue not exceeding two pounds."
  The hon. Member remarked that he thought it was of great importance in the public interests that the motor cars should be compelled to carry lights, and to carry them in such a manner, that the cars would be visible after dark. The protection of public life was absolutely involved in the matter, because the motion of the cars would be comparatively noiseless. It was laid down by an Act in 1888 that bicycles should carry lights after dark, and the precaution had been found to be in the highest
  1110
  degree necessary. ["Hear, hear!"] In those circumstances, he contended that a similar regulation should be applied to motor vehicles of all descriptions in the public interest. He presumed that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was in favour of the object of the new clause, because, when in Committee on the Measure, the right hon. Gentleman had an Amendment down to precisely the same effect. When he moved his Amendment the right hon. Gentleman appealed to him to withdraw it, saying he would later on move an Amendment much to the same effect. Later on the right hon. Gentleman did move an Amendment but very quickly withdrew it. It would be said that regulations as to lights would be made by the local authorities. Clause "provided that the Local Government Board" may "make regulations with respect to the use of light locomotives. It would be said the Board "may" make regulations as to lights. They "may" or they "may" not. He mentioned that it should be laid down by Statute that motor carriages should carry lights, and it was with that view he moved the Clause which stood in his name.
  Clause read a First time.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLsaid it would be very simple to say that every motor car should carry a light be would prefer a red light so as to distinguish it from any other vehicle.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid the Government never contemplated anything so foolish that these cars should go without lights at night, but what happened before the Standing Committee was this. The hon. Member hail an Amendment to the effect that the cars should carry lights. Another Amendment was down in the name of the President of the Local Government Board, and upon that Amendment the discussion was taken. The Committee considered that this and a great many other matters might be best regulated by rules made by the Local Government Board. His right hon. Friend thereupon withdrew the Amendment. The undertaking given would be carried out.
  MR. WARNERsaid the Local Government Board might have given an undertaking to make a regulation that these ears should carry lights, but there was no reason why it should not be laid down by law that every motor ear should carry a light.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid it was obvious it would be much better to have the matter settled by law than to leave it to the Local Government Board. The County Councils and other local authorities would have to approach the Local Government Board and they did not exactly know what view the Board would take. If they had an Act of Parliament behind them matters would be made much easier.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERthought the Local Government Board was undermanned and overworked, and could not conceive any reason why Parliament should saddle it with additional work in this matter. The last Conservative Government provided, in the Local Government Act of 1888, that bicycles should carry lights, and he trusted the present Government would accept this clause, and not put the House to the trouble of dividing.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that undoubtedly motor cars ought to carry lights, and the Local Government Board had given an undertaking that they would make regulations accordingly. It was quite true the Local Government Board was undermanned, but in spite of that he thought they were able to make regulations in such a matter as this. There were a number of other questions which would have to be dealt with and which, he thought, had better be the subject of regulations. He saw no necessity to make an exception in this particular case. As to the character of the light and the precise conditions under which it should be shown, that was a question which required consideration, but if the House wished to have it inserted that a light should be carried he should have no objection to that. [Cheers.]
  SIR W. HART DYKEsaid what they wanted, from a practical point of view, was protection. They did not want to go to the Local Government Board for protection. ["Hear, hear!"] It was a simple thing to say plainly by statute that those
  1112
  vehicles should on all occasions carry a light, ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. J. LLOYD WHARTONwas sure the whole country-would welcome a provision in favour of safety.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)said there was no objection to accepting the words of the clause down to and including the words "exhibit a light," with the addition, "in accordance with regulations to be made by the Local Government Board."
  Clause, as amended, read a Second time and added to the Bill.
  MR. LUTTRELL*MR. LUTTRELL moved the following now clause, which was read a First time:—

  LOCOMOTIVES TO CAREY A BELL.
  "Every light locomotive shall carry a bell or other instrument capable of giving audible and sufficient warning of the approach or position of the carriage."
  He said the object of this was as impartial as the last, to which the Committee had just assented. For while the last made provision for making these carriages visible, the object of this was to make them capable of being audible. The last affected only the night, this affected both day and night. As these carriages would be noiseless he thought it very necessary that they should be in such a state as to be able to give notice of approach.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid this Amendment was rejected in the Grand Committee, but if it was the wish of the House he should accept it. ["Hear, hear."]
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
  MR. LUTTRELL*MR. LUTTRELL moved the following new clause, which was read a First time:—

  RATE OF SPEED.
  "No light locomotive shall travel along a public highway at a greater speed than 14 miles an hour."
  He said he thought it necessary that there should be some limit of speed. Unless there were some limit these

  1113
  carriages might travel at a speed dangerous to the public. For they would only come under the provisions against furious driving—and this law-was extremely difficult to carry out. Policemen were now largely influenced in their idea of furious driving by the amount of exertion a horse was making. It would be quite possible to drive a rapid horse at ten or twelve miles an hour without being had up for furious driving, while to whip a slow horse into ten miles an hour would very likely appear as furious driving. These carriages would go as smoothly at one rate as at another, and it would therefore be extremely difficult to say what was furious driving. For these reasons he contended for a limit of speed, and he thought 14 miles an hour a reasonable maximum.
  MR. LOUGHconsidered that 10 miles an hour would be sufficient.
  MR. CHAPLINthought that the powers already possessed provided against furious driving, and it was for that reason, and because the Standing Committee were almost unanimously of opinion that these regulations had better be made by the Local Government Board, that he felt disposed to ask the hon. Member not to press his proposal. On the other hand, 14 miles as a maximum he did not think was at all unreasonable. [Cries of "Oh!"] There was some objection to drawing a hard and fast line, because what should be the maximum speed in the Strand or in any crowded street would not be equally suitable in the country.
  MR. WHARTONsaid the conclusion arrived at by the Central Chamber of Agriculture was that 10 miles was enough. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsuggested that if the clause were adopted these words should be added, "or than such lesser rate as may be prescribed by the regulations of the Local Government Board." ["Hear, hear!"]
  CAPTAIN BETHELLheld that it would be a mistake to lay down a limit of sped. These machines were not always going to weigh three tons, in the course of time they would be improved and made lighter, and he was strongly of opinion that the regulation of speed ought to be left to the authorities.
  MR. HENRY LLEWELYNhoped his right hon. Friend would not fix the limit at more than ten miles, and that if it were fixed by the Local Government Board they should have a pledge that that limit should not be exceeded.
  MR. J. PARKER SMITHthought that a fixed limit would be dangerous, and that it would be safer to go on the principle of furious driving.
  MR. B. L. COHENthought the Local Government Board should be directed to fix a Less rate of speed.
  MR. WARNERcontended that there ought to be a maximum in the Bill.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Does the hon. Member accept the suggestion of the Solicitor-General?
  MR. LUTTRELLassented.
  Clause read a Second time.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL MR. T. W. RUSSELL moved to insert at the end of the clause the words:—
  "or at such lesser rate as may be prescribed by the regulations of the Local Government Board."
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR JOHN DORING TON SIR JOHN DORING TON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury) moved to leave out the word "fourteen," and to insert instead thereof the word "ten."
  MR. CHAPLINsaid they were discussing a new subject, on which, perhaps, more experience would be beneficial. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment. These vehicles were of very different descriptions; some were very light and calculated to go faster than others, while some should not go at a greater rate than ten miles an hour. He knew carriages which in these days went at a rate of more than 10 miles an hour, and he remembered the time when be should have thought that rather a slow rate of progress. [Laughter.] He thought it might be safely left to the discretion of the Local Government Board to make regulations suited to the various requirements of the case.
  MR. F. G. BANBURYreminded hon. Members that country roads had sharp corners.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid he was quite certain, they used in coaches to travel at a faster rate than 10 miles an hour, and these vehicles could be pulled up with greater-facility than could a heavy coach drawn by four horses with no brake. He thought the House would make a mistake to lay down a hard and fast rule on the point. It would be better to leave the maximum as proposed in the clause, and allow the Local Government Board to make such regulations as they might from time to time think proper.
  MR. HENRY LLEWELLYNinsisted that locomotives, three tons weight, going at such a speed would cause great injury to the roads.
  MR. P. A. MUNTZsupported the suggestion of leaving to the Local Government Board the fixing of regulations, as necessity required.
  MR. MICHAEL FLAVINthought the House would do well to accept an Irish maxim, and split the difference as between 10 miles and 14 miles.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTShoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the clause as it stood. Vehicles ought to be allowed to travel on quiet country roads at a maximum of 14 miles.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsuggested that 14 miles should be allowed to stand as the maximum, and the words, "or than any less speed which may be prescribed by the Local Government Board," be added at the end of the clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALproposed the addition of the words, "or than any less speed which may be prescribed by the Local Government Board."
  MR. F. A. CHANNIKGasked whether the Local Government Board would prescribe different rules for different parts of the country?
  MR. CHAPLINreplied that the regulations would be framed by the Local Government Board in accordance with local needs.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered in stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 1,—

  EXEMPTION OF LIGHT LOCOMOTIVES FROM CERTAIN STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
  (1.) The enactments mentioned in the schedule to this Act. and my other enactment restricting the use of locomotives on highways and contained in any public general, or local and personal Act in force at the passing of this Act, shall not apply to any vehicle propelled by mechanical power, if it is under three tons in weight unladen, and is not used for the purpose of drawing more than one vehicle (such vehicle with its locomotive not to exceed in weight unladen four tons), and is so constructed that no smoke or visible vapour is emitted there from except from any temporary or accidental cause; and vehicles so exempted, whether locomotives or drawn by locomotives, are in this Act referred to as light locomotives.
  Provided that:—
  (a.) A county authority shall have power to make byelaws preventing or restricting the use of such locomotives upon any bridge where such authority are satisfied that such use would be attended with damage to the public, subject to an appeal to the Local Government Board by any person aggrieved by the exercise of the power.
  (b.) A light locomotive shall be deemed to be a carriage within the meaning of any Act of Parliament, whether public general or local, and of any rule, regulation, or byelaw made under any Act of Parliament, and, if used as a carriage of any particular class, shall be deemed to he a carriage of that class, and the law relating to carriages of that class shall apply accordingly.
  (2.) In calculating for the purposes of this Act the weight of a vehicle unladen, the weight of any water, fuel, or accumulators used for the purpose of propulsion shall not be included.
  MR. LUTTRELL*MR. LUTTRELL moved in Subsection (1) to leave out "three tons" and to insert "four tons." He thought three tons was too light a maximum. If the locomotive was throe tons the vehicle could only be one ton, for locomotive and vehicle together could only be four tons. The omnibuses running in London were from 28 to 30 cwt. weight, or about a ton and a half. Therefore they were proposing that the vehicles to be drawn by locomotives should be of a lesser weight than the omnibuses drawn by one or two horses.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that this question had given much trouble. When the Bill was originally introduced in another place, the weight allowed was tons unladen. That was changed to 4 tons, but traction was introduced. In

  1117
  the House of Commons Standing Committee everyone but the hon. Member thought that 4 tons was too much, and "3 tons" was inserted as a compromise, another ton being allowed for the weight of the waggon drawn. The Committee would see that the weight of water, fuel and accumulators was not to be included.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. LUTTRELL*MR. LUTTRELL moved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "or visible vapour." He thought it unreasonable to forbid these motor cars to emit visible vapour, when men and horses alike did so. There was ample provision against the emitting of smoke.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that the Standing Committee arrived at a practically unanimous decision on this point. The experts who had been consulted said that it was possible to construct the motor cars so that no visible vapour would be emitted: and as vapour might be annoyance it was best to require that the cars should be so constructed.
  MR. LOUGHhoped that the Government would stand by their words. His hon. Friend wished to make these cars twice too heavy, to let them go too fast, and to encourage them to pump out steam.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN moved in paragraph (a) Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "A county authority," and to insert the words "The council of any county or county borough as the body having power to restrict the use of locomotives on bridges."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN moved, in Paragraph (a) Sub-section (1), after the word "bridge" to insert the words "within their area."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN moved, in Paragraph (a) Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "damage," and to insert instead thereof the word "danger," the former word being a misprint.
  SIR JOHN DORINGTONthought "damage" a very important word, because damage to a bridge might mean that the bridge was broken down. He suggested, therefore, that both words, should stand.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERhoped that they would adhere to the word "danger," otherwise the Sub-section would be unintelligible.
  MR. CHAPLINthought the right hon. Gentleman was right. The word "danger" included everything that was desirable or necessary.
  SIR J. DORINGTONsaid the way he would like it put was "the damage to the bridge, or danger to the public."
  MR. JASPER TULLYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would include some "extraordinary traffic" clause to apply to Ireland.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that in the Amendment that would be moved later it was proposed to legislate on this very point. The County Authority in Ireland shall mean the Grand Jury.
  MR. WHARTONthought that the retention of the word "damage" would be extremely useful, because serious damage might be done to a bridge, and no notice taken of it. The clause should, therefore, read "damage to the bridge or danger to the public."
  Question, "That the word 'damage' stand part of the Rill." Agreed to.
  SIR. J. DORINGTON SIR. J. DORINGTON moved, in Paragraph (b) Sub-section (1), after the word "damage" to insert the words "to the bridge or danger."
  Amendment agreed to.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL CAPTAIN BETHELL moved to leave out from paragraph (a) Sub-section (1) the words,
  "subject to au appeal to the Local Government Board by any person aggrieved by the exercise of the power,"
  and substituting words giving the County Authority the power of regulating the use of locomotives upon highways. He said it was an extraordinary circumstance after the trouble taken to bring together the best men in town and counties for the work of local councils

  1119
  that whenever they proposed to restrict the use of a locomotive on a bridge, because they were satisfied that there was likely to be damage to the bridge or danger to the public, an individual should be allowed to appeal to the Local Government Board. Even under the existing law the County Authority had complete control over existing locomotives on bridges. He wanted to give the County Councils and the Town Councils some power in connection with the regulation of locomotives on their highways, and he moved this Amendment in the interests of the Local Government Board.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that as it seemed to be generally admitted that the Local Government Board had enough to do already, he was quite willing to omit the words which his hon. Friend proposed to leave out; but to the words which his hon. Friend proposed to insert he could not agree.
  Amendment agreed to.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL CAPTAIN BETHELL moved after the word "power," (struck out) to insert the words "or regulating their use upon highways."
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLpointed out that if the various County Authorities in the kingdom were permitted to make independent regulations it would be impossible to secure anything approaching to uniformity. The House should beat-in mind that these cars would very likely cross the boundaries of three counties in a single day. If the regulations of these counties differed in character, a car, an omnibus perhaps, might be brought to a standstill at some inconvenient moment. One county might sanction a certain width of wheel, and another county a different width. (Captain BETHELL: "No.") If the Amendment were agreed to this, traffic would be exposed to extraordinary difficulties. He resisted the Amendment on the ground that it was desirable to secure uniformity and prevent confusion.
  MR. WARNERurged that boroughs ought to be permitted to make their own regulations as to speed, and that counties ought to have the same power. Omnibus directors would soon learn the rules of different counties. Some little difficulty might at first be caused to tourists by varying regulations, but guide-books
  1120
  would soon be published supplying them with all necessary information.
  MR. TULLYhoped the Amendment would not be agreed to. The inconvenience caused by a diversity of regulations was proved in the Committee that had considered the subject of traction engines. It was there stated that an unfortunate man who had passed through several counties with his engine had been served with six separate summonses for infringements of varying regulations. Being accustomed to coercion as an Irishman, this evidence had made him feel as if he were at home. [Laughter.]
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 3,—

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD REGULATIONS.
  (1.) The Local Government Board may make regulations with respect to the use of light locomotives on highways, and their construction and other conditions under which they may be used, and a breach of any such regulations may be thereby made punishable by a fine not exceeding ten pounds, recoverable on summary conviction.
  (2.) Regulations under this may, if the Local Government Board deem it necessary, be of a local nature and limited in their application to a particular area.
  MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN moved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words—
  "and a breach of any such regulation may he thereby made punishable by a tine not exceeding ten pounds, recoverable on summary conviction."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. CHAPLIN Mr. CHAPLIN moved at the end of Sub-section (2) after the word "area," to insert—
  "and may on the application of any local authority prohibit or restrict the use of locomotives for the purposes of traction in crowded streets or in other places where such use may be attended with danger to the public."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN moved to add at the end of the clause after the words last inserted—
  "All regulations under this section shall have full effect notwithstanding anything in any other Act, whether general or local, or any bye-laws or regulations made there under."
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENwished to know whether the Amendment met the point he intended to raise by the next Amendment.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid the Amendment was intended to obviate the danger of its being supposed that any local bye-laws should prevail over regulations made by the Local Government Board. He thought the hon. Gentleman would see that the clause he proposed was quite unnecessary. Although Clause 1 provided that the Acts scheduled should not apply, there was nothing to prevent the Local Government Board making regulations similar to any of those contained in those Acts.
  MR. TULLYasked whether it would not be possible to insert something in the nature of an Extraordinary Traffic Clause, giving local authorities in Ireland power, in the case of any of their bridges or roads being damaged by the improper use of them, to recover damages, or to restrict their use.
  In answer to Captain BETHELL,
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid said that it was provided in Clause 1 that a light locomotive should be deemed to be a carriage within the meaning of any Act of Parliament, so that any provision of the Common Law as to the use of carriages would apply to the locomotives.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLsuggested that the Local Authorities might have the powers they had now.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid that the bye-laws of a local Act would be superseded only in so far as they were inconsistent to the regulations made by the Local Government Board. As to the Question put by the hon. Member for South Leitrim, there was a Bill to amend the law with respect to the use of locomotives only. The Extraordinary Traffic Clause dealt with traffic of all descriptions, and therefore it would be quite impossible to introduce it into this Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN moved to add at the end of the clause after the words last inserted:—
  "And such regulations shall not be invalid by reason only that they contain restrictions or conditions which might be imposed under any of the Acts contained in the Schedule."
  The hon. Member said the Amendment would do no harm, it would stop litigation and would protect local authorities from unnecessary litigation or difficulty in dealing with the Local Government Board.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALhoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment. The first section only provided that the enactments mentioned in the Schedule of the Act should not apply to locomotives provided they complied with certain conditions. That was to say, locomotives of the kind were relieved from the burden of those Acts. But there is no enactment that such locomotives should not be subject to similar conditions or regulations under orders made by the Local Government Board. So he was on safe ground in saying there was no possible objection in point of law to the Local Government Board making regulations to the same effect as to any portion of the Acts referred to. The hon. Member said the Local Government Board might hesitate to make such regulations. He could assure him that the Local Government Board would have no hesitation in the matter. If regulations were desirable they would be so advised, and there would not be the slightest objection to making what regulations were thought right.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid the remarks of the Solicitor General would be on record, and as they satisfied his object in moving the Amendment, he would withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PARKER SMITH MR. PARKER SMITH moved to add at the end of the clause, after the words last inserted:—
  "Every regulation purporting to be made in pursuance of this Section shall be forthwith laid

  1123
  before both Houses of Parliament, and if an address is presented to Her Majesty the Queen by either House within the next forty days thereafter, on which that House has sat, praying that any such regulation may be annulled, Her Majesty in Council may annul the same without prejudice to the validity of anything done in the meantime in pursuance thereof; but subject as aforesaid every regulation shall, while unrevoked, be of the same validity as if enacted in this Act."
  The hon. Member said he hoped the Amendment would be accepted. It was discussed at some length upstairs. It commended itself to the Committee at large, and the principle was then accepted by the Government, but in consequence of difficulties as to how it was to be worked out in detail it was withdrawn on the understanding that it would be moved in the House. There was no doubt that the House ought to have an opportunity of discussing and criticising these proposals. It appeared to him that the knowledge that these things would be upon the Table of the House and be subjected to the criticism of hon. Members had a great effect of itself. He begged to move his Amendment.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that he should find great difficulty in accepting the whole of the hon. Member's Amendment, for a reason with which he thought the House would sympathise and agree. They were very rapidly, he hoped, approaching the end of the Session, and supposing that the regulations were not completed before the House adjourned, the manufacturers of these new vehicles, who were looking forward with the greatest anxiety to the passing of this Bill, would find that, in consequence of the regulations not having received the approval of that House, they would be unable to use these new carriages until Parliament re-assembled. He thought that that would be going beyond what was necessary in this case. He admitted that it would be important that the regulations should be laid before Parliament, and therefore he was willing to accept that part of the hon. Member's Amendment which required that the regulations should be forthwith laid before both Houses of Parliament, in order to give hon. Members an opportunity of criticising them. In these circumstances he hoped that the right
  1124
  hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Amendment suggested by Mr. CHAPLIN agreed to; clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 4,—

  CONSTRUCTION OF WHEELS OF LOCOMOTIVES ON ROADS.
  The requirements of Sub-section 4 of Section 28 of the Highways and Locomotives Amendment Act, 1878, may be from time to time varied by Order of the Local Government Board.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL CAPTAIN BETHELL moved the omission of Clause 4. He said that anyone looking at the clause, and comparing it with the schedule, would wonder what on earth the clause was doing in the Bill. No doubt there might be good grounds for its having been placed in the Bill, and, perhaps, the hon. and learned Solicitor General would be able to give the House some explanation why it appeared in it?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that the clause had been inserted by the Standing Committee. The object of the clause was to give the Local Government Board power to sanction these new vehicles. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 5,—

  APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND.
  (1.) In the application of this Act to Scotland a reference to the Secretary for Scotland shall be substituted for a reference to the Local Government Board.
  MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN moved, after the word "Board," to add the words:—
  "A reference to the road authority of any county or burgh for a reference to the council of a county, and a reference to Sub-section 4 of Section 3 of the Locomotives Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1878, for a reference to Sub-section 4 of Section 28 of the Highways and Locomotives Amendment Act, 1878."
  MR. C. B. RENSHAW MR. C. B. RENSHAW (Renfrew, W.) moved to amend the proposed Amendment by adding, after the words "reference to the council of a country," the words "or county burgh."
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to; clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 6,—

  APPLICATION TO IRELAND.
  In the application of this Act to Ireland a reference to the Local Government Board for Ireland shall he substituted for a reference to the Local Government Board.
  MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN moved after the word "Board," to add
  "and a reference to the council of a county shall he construed in an urban sanitary district under the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, as a reference to the urban sanitary authority, and elsewhere as a reference to the grand jury."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. TULLY*MR. TULLY moved to add a proviso at the end of the clause to the effect that in Ireland power should be given to the Grand Jury or County Surveyor to take proceedings before the magistrates against the owners of locomotives for damage done to roads. He said that at present there was no power to proceed against the owners of those engines, no matter what damage they caused, and this he considered a great hardship, inasmuch as the county cess, by which the roads were maintained, was paid exclusively by the occupiers and tenant farmers.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELANDpointed out that under Section 3 the local authorities in Ireland would have ample power to make bye-laws regulating the traffic of motor engines and imposing a penalty of £10 for their infringement. The words were therefore entirely unnecessary.
  MR. TULLY: If they are unnecessary, that is no reason why there should be any harm in adopting them. [Laughter.]
  MR. DALYthought this matter should be placed in more popular hands than the Grand Jury. He suggested the Baronial Sessions.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLpointed out that the House had already agreed that the
  1126
  Grand Jury should be the county authority to act in the matter.
  SIR R. PENROSE-FITZGERALDsaid he thought there was a good deal of force in the Amendment. The Grand Jury lapsed after every Assize; there was no permanent existence with them, and the only county authority that could at present interfere in the action of presentment with regard to any damage of the kind referred to, was the County Surveyor. He could not see that the Amendment would in anyway unfavourably affect the Bill, whilst at the same time he thought it would safeguard the interests of the ratepayers. Besides, he thought the Amendment would be the easiest way of meeting the object in view.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the words which had been proposed might not be entirely satisfactory, though he thought the County Surveyor in Ireland was the authority who should be empowered to act in the matter, and he would suggest that the Government should look into the point, and that, on that promise, the Amendment should be withdrawn.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid that Section 1 and Section 3 would enable the Grand Juries to make bye-laws prohibiting the use of those engines on certain conditions, and inflicting a fine of £10 in case of breach of those conditions. He thought that that would afford ample protection to the public. With regard to the proposal respecting the County Surveyor, he thought it would be very undesirable, for several reasons, to confer on that official the power, on his own motion, to institute proceedings for damage. There might be difficulty in recovering the costs of an action against him or the Grand Jury should it be unsuccesful. But there would be nothing to prevent the Grand Jury from providing in their bye-laws that he should have power to sue in their name, in certain cases, to recover the penalties.
  Amendment negatived; clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN moved "That the Bill be re-committed."
  MR. J. SAMUELwould like to know what it was proposed to do with regard to bridges in non-county boroughs. ["Order, order!"]
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid the Government thought it most convenient that the County councils should make bye-laws.
  Ordered, That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of a new Clause (Excise Duty), and of an Amendment to the Clause (Penalties), added on Consideration, as amended.—(Mr. Chaplin.)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  MR. CHAPLINbrought up the following new Clause, which was read a First time:—

  EXCISE DUTY ON CERTAIN LOCOMOTIVES.
  (1) On and after the first day of January next after the passing of this Act there shall he granted, charged, and paid in Great Britain for every light locomotive which is liable to duty either as a carriage or as a hackney carriage under Section four of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, an additional duty of excise at the following rate, namely:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  If the weight of the locomotive exceeds one ton unladen, but does not exceed two tons unladen

  2

  2

  0

  If the weight of the locomotive exceeds two tons unladen

  3

  3

  0

  (2) Every such duty shall he paid, together with the duty on the licence for the locomotive as a carriage or a hackney carriage, and shall in England be dealt with in manner directed, with respect to duties on local taxation licences within the meaning of the Local Government Act, 1888, and in Scotland he paid into the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account, and be dealt with as part of the residue within the meaning of section two, sub-section three, of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890."
  He said it seemed to him that it was only fair that when these vehicles were of excessive weight they should pay an additional duty, and the Standing Committee appeared to be unanimously of opinion that this should be done. The clause was a very simple one.
  MR. LUTTRELLobjected to the clause. The men who were making this
  1128
  start were public benefactors, and ought not, therefore, to be taxed so heavily. Under this clause, a man with one of these motors might have to pay as much as five guineas, for he would have to pay the Carriage Duty, which might be two guineas, as well as the three guineas extra. It might be argued that these cars would do more harm to the roads than ordinary carriages; but if they were thus taxed on that account, they were not consistent in that line of argument, as the money would be collected in one centre by the Imperial authority, and only be distributed to local authorities according to the rateable value. Thus in our district there might be a hundred motor carriages using the roads, in another only five, and yet the district in which there were a hundred, would, if the rateable values were the same, receive no more than that in which there were five. He thought the present tax on carriages ample, and was opposed to taxing extra those who would be making useful experiments.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the object of the Bill was to withdraw the obstruction which the existing law presented to the employment of motor ears, and yet in the same Bill it was proposed to fine the people who employed them.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLalso thought the proposed tax was too heavy.
  MR. TULLYsaid he opposed the proposal, as he felt sure it would be followed by a tax on bicycles and tricycles.
  Question put,—" That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 125; Noes, 30.—(Division List, No. 358.)
  Clause added to the Bill.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that under the existing law carriages used for pleasure were taxed two guineas, whereas hackney carriages were only taxed fifteen shillings. If a poor man were to try to make a living by running a motor car as a hackney carriage, his tax ought not to be higher than fifteen shillings.
  MR. CHAPLINpointed out that a motor car used as an ordinary hackney carriage could not possibly weigh a ton, it would therefore pay only fifteen

  1129
  shillings. A large car used as an omni bus would be so expensive a vehicle that it would be out of a poor man's reach. Heavy vehicles of that kind would be run by companies that could well afford to pay the additional duties.
  MR. LOUGHcomplained that no distinction was made between the motor carriage used for pleasure and the hackney motor carriage.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that under the existing law the carriage used for pleasure paid two guineas, and the hackney carriage only fifteen shillings. That state of things would continue.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
Motion made, "That this Bill be read the Third time."
MR. CHANNING*MR. CHANNING moved to recommit the Bill in respect of Clauses 16, 23, and 25. He wanted to draw the attention of the Government to two important points which, as yet, there had been no opportunity of considering in that House, and which could not be dealt with in another place. With regard to Clauses 16 and 25, the objects which he had in view were embodied in Amendments which were placed upon the Paper for the Report Stage, but which could not be moved owing to the questions raised being questions of rating, and thus out of Order except in Committee. Those Amendments provided that any rates levied for the purposes of this Bill should be special rates, and should be divided between the owner and the occupier, having regard to the great advantage conferred on the owners of estates by this Bill. In order that those points might be considered, it would be necessary to re-commit the Bill. The second of these clauses, he would point out, referred to Scotland, where most of the rates of this nature were at the present time divided between the occupier and the owner, and not to divide the rate would create an anomaly. To render
1130
the special rate under the Bill divisible between owner and occupier, would, therefore, only be to apply to the case of light railways the usual rule of Scotch rating. He also asked that the Bill should be recommitted in respect of Clause 23. He thought that many hon. Members could hardly have considered how largely this Bill would modify the rights of municipalities and local authorities under the Tramways Act of 1870. As matters stood now, a local authority, when a tramway was constructed by promoters other than themselves, had a statutory right to acquire it by purchase within six months after the expiring 21 years, or of any seventh year afterwards. The present Bill provided machinery which would be largely used by the promoters of tramways, but it contained provisions which would completely alter the position of local authorities in respect of the power to acquire tramways. The tendency of legislation in these matters had been hitherto to increase rather than to decrease the power of local authorities. Under the Bill as it stood a local authority would have to decide at once whether it would purchase a tramway or not. It could not retain the option of purchase for 21 years. Then, the right of the local authority to purchase even under the original order was rendered subject to the discretion of the Light Railway Commissioners in the first place, and to the discretion of the Board of Trade in the second place. In the Committee upstairs—he was only referring to tramways, and not to light railways—the Government inserted words which made it absolutely imperative that any amending order relating to railways constructed under this Act should not only be, like the original order, at the discretion of the Light Railway Commissioners and of the Board of Trade, but also at the discretion of the promoters of the tramway, without whose consent no order for purchase by the local authority could then be made. The whole of the rights of local authorities with regard to tramways would be imperilled and swept away by this Bill if the promoters of the lines adopted its procedure in preference to the procedure under the Tramways Act. That was a matter which seriously deserved the consideration of Her Majesty's Government before

1131
the Bill passed into law. These matters could not be raised on Report because they raised questions of rating; and for the same reason it was impossible for the Government to deal with either point in another place. He, therefore, ventured to ask Her Majesty's Government to consent to the recommittal of the Bill, and especially with regard to the question of tramways. It seemed to him a matter of very grave importance that the Government, before they passed this Bill into law, should consider how far they were justified in modifying the present state of the law and the statutory rights now enjoyed by local authorities under the Act of 1870.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,)said he was quite unable to accept the Motion. The hon. Gentleman was himself a member of the Grand Committee before which the Bill came, and he had ample opportunity of raising these questions then and did not avail himself of it. Having regard to the fact that the Bill took several days in Committee, it was rather hard now to ask the House to consider these matters. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Gentleman's main point was in connection with tramways, and he wished a provision to be inserted which would enable a local authority, if they found one of their railways was a success, to purchase it at practically the cost of the material of which it was made.
MR. CHANNING: I only referred to tramways.
MR. RITCHIE: Yes, but there is no distinction between tramways and light railways under the Bill. He thought that enterprise would be very largely stopped if a local authority could wait until they saw that one of these railways was a success and then come forward and demand to purchase it. That was a most unreasonable request to make, and would greatly interfere with the making of these railways. There was a good deal to be said for the division of rates between owner and occupier, but this was a feeble way of approaching the subject. A rate separate from all the others would have to be levied, and that could only be done at an enormous cost of trouble and expense to the local authority.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid he was in favour of imposing the whole rate in respect, of light railways on the freeholder, and letting the tenant on whom the rate was assessed deduct it from his rent in the same way that the property tax was now deducted. There would be no trouble or expense if the light railway rate were made a separate item and charged and set ont separately in the demand note. When the freeholder's property was permanently improved he should bear the whole charge.
DR. CLARKsupported the Amendment.
Question put, "That the words 'now read the Third time' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes, 104; Noes, 31.—(Division List, No. 359.)
On the question "That the Bill be read the Third time,"
MR. CALDWELLsaid the Bill involved considerable constitutional changes. Parliament had the sole power of giving the compulsory power of purchase and of displacing the occupiers of the soil. Even in the case of a Provisional Order Bill giving the Secretary for Scotland, the Local Government Board or the Irish Office the power of compulsory purchase, the Bill had to pass through both Houses of Parliament like any other Bill. But for the first time this Bill proposed that Parliament should surrender its powers in that respect to the Board of Trade, and there was no appeal to Parliament, from any Order the Board of Trade might authorise for the making of a light railway. A new principle was also introduced in connection with the question of compensation. The Board of Trade was to be allowed to appoint a sole arbitrator who was to decide the question of compensation between the railway company and the proprietor of the land. That was a novel and extraordinary power. The Board of Trade was to be given the power to decide whether a certain light railway should or should not be submitted to Parliament. Such a proposal was monstrous, and if it had emanated from a Liberal Government they would

1133
have heard loud objections made to it. [Laughter and loud cries of "Divide!"] The powers surrendered to the Board of Trade in this case were far greater than any powers which, it was alleged, were to be surrendered under the Home Rule Bill. [Laughter and loud cries of "Divide!"] In the latter case, some power was reserved to the Imperial Parliament, but in this case no power of veto of any kind was reserved to Parliament. [Cries of"Divide!"] At present the Board of Trade was liable to Parliament for any order they issued; but in this instance they would be free to act independently of Parliament. Another matter to which he wished to refer was the important question of rating. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Divide!"] He complained that through the action taken by the Government on the Bill, he and other Members had been prevented from fully discussing the rating clauses of the Measure, from moving Amendments with the object of providing that the rates should be divided between the landlord and tenant, and from having the opportunity of dividing the House on the matter. Thus they had been altogether prevented from discussing the point on whom the rates should fall. [Cries of "Divide!"] It would not be denied that a railway in a district was a great benefit to the community. There was no question that it largely increased the value of the land, and yet, according to the Bill, the whole rate which might be necessary was to be levied upon the tenants. In Scotland the rate was divided between the landlord and tenant, and he objected to any alteration of the practice. Then there were the farmers who had no particular interest in light railways. ["Oh!" and interruption.] He must say he never sat in a Parliament where there was such an amount of interruption as that which proceeded from the Party opposite. [Ironical cheers and "Hear, hear!"] All that they wanted was that they should give them a fair opportunity of stating their views. If they cared to let them closure them, and not howl them down. ["Hear, hear!"]
SIR C. DILKEsaid that his hon. Friend had given the same reasons as those advanced by Lord Salisbury with regard to the Parish Councils Bill in the
1134
matter of allotments. He therefore could not vote with his hon. Friend.
Main Question put and agreed to; Bill read the Third time, and passed.

TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
Read a Second time, and committed for To-morrow.
SUPPLY [24TH JULY] REPORT.
Order read, for Further Consideration of Postponed Resolutions—
SUPPLY [24TH JULY] REPORT.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPART- MENTS ESTIMATES, 1896–7.

    CLASS II.
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding.£24,597, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland,"—
    MR. T. M. HEALYcalled attention to the fact that 615,000 had been expended on the new library in Dublin which had been completed since January last and yet it could not be opened because the Government would not provide the necessary sanitary accommodation. The consequence was that the junior bar was condemned to the mephitic atmosphere of the old library. He hoped the Board of Works was not wholly, though they were, he believed, partly in fault. The Board of Works in Dublin would never put anything into writing, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to get them to do something on this question of sanitary accommodation, and to get something from them in writing on the subject.
    MR. HANBURYsaid that so far as his recollection went the sole fund available was the £15,000. It so happened that there had been a larger amount of money spent in respect of

    1135
    certain details in connection with the library than had been anticipated. But he was glad to inform the hon. Gentleman that the Board of Works had arranged that the sanitary works should be undertaken at once. Of the £15,000 a sum of £600 had been set aside for a new Land Commission Court, but as there was now no new Land Commission Court to be provided there would be ample money to carry out the whole of the original programme.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation.
    Resolution agreed to.

    CLASS III
    "3. That a sum, not exceeding,£41,825, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland."
    MR. DILLONcalled attention to the case of a man named Keating who was charged in the Mayor's Court, Clonmel, with stealing two head of cattle. After the case had been gone into at considerable length the magistrate decided that the charge was so serious that he would not deal with it summarily, but would commit that man for trial. The solicitor applied for bail, but the police opposed the application and the magistrate refused it. The man pleaded guilty at the Assizes, and the Judge said that the Crown had acted with great leniency in not pressing the case. The man was only bound over to come up for judgment, and ordered to restore the cattle and pay damages. Between the hearing by the magistrate and the trial the police had found that the man was an emergency man, and that was why the prosecution was not pressed. It would have been very different if the cattle had been stolen from instead of by an emergency man. This was by no means an isolated case, but illustrated the practice of the Crown prosecutors for a long time past. There was another case. Three poor fishermen went out on the Shannon at night; they were followed by bailiffs who demanded to search the boat, they refused, and one of the bailiffs fired four shots from a revolver, shooting one of the fishermen
    1136
    in the chest. Cross prosecutions were brought, but the Grand Jury of Ennis, which included six Conservatives and the employer of the bailiff, threw out the Bill against the bailiff and returned a true Bill against the fisherman who was still lying in gaol suffering from his wound. He asked that these cases should be inquired into, and that if the fisherman were still in prison he should be liberated.
    MR. J. P. FARRELLcalled attention to the case of Michael Hopkins, who was sentenced in 1891 to 24 years' penal servitude in consequence of the death of a man called Fox, of whom he was alleged to have caused the boycotting. A man tried for a similar offence in 1889 received only five years' penal servitude He hoped the Attorney General would look into the inequality of these sentences.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to comment on the sentence inflicted by the judges.
    MR. J. P. FARRELLhoped that the Attorney General for Ireland would consider the facts in each of the cases to which he had drawn attention, and that the right hon. Gentleman would advise the Lord Lieutenant to exercise the prerogative of mercy if the facts were found to be as he had stated.
    MR. T. M. HEALYcomplained of the high-handed conduct of the so-called conservators of the Shannon, who were unjustifiably using the powers conferred by the Lough Neagh Act on the pretence that that Measure applied to the Shannon. He also complained of the frequent revolver-firing by bailiffs at night on that river. He next drew attention to the attempted proselytising case at Cork. In connection with this case Mr. Justice Holmes, soaring above all party and religious prejudices, had condemned the conduct of the head constable concerned. The learned judge said that the head constable's action was not in conformity with his duty, and that he must have known that the whole proceeding from the first to the last was a sham and a humbug. The mother of the child was induced to pretend that her children were Protestants, in order that the child might be sent to a Protestant Industrial School. The head constable put the woman up to

    1137
    swearing in open Court that the children were Protestant; in other words, he suborned her to commit perjury. The woman was induced to make mis-statements with regard to the age of the children and their religion, and the head constable was condemned by the learned Judge for aiding and abetting the misrepresentation. Two Canons of the Church of England were also concerned in the matter. If a Catholic official were to kidnap Protestant children in order that they might be sent to a Catholic institution, all England would be up in arms against what it would call papal tyranny. He expected to hear from the Government a scathing condemnation of such practices as those disclosed in this case at Cork. The head constable, he held, ought to have been dismissed at once; and what was to be said about the two distinguished divines, who had induced the mother to swear that her children were not Roman Catholics? These clergymen were supposed to be disciples of our Saviour, who said "Swear not at all."
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: I know one of these clergymen, and he is utterly incapable of the conduct imputed to him.
    MR. SPEAKER: Whether the conduct of the clergymen ought to be reprehended or not, I do not see how it is relevant.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid his point was that the Government ought to arraign these gentlemen, with the head constable, for conspiracy. He wanted to know why they had not been arraigned, and why the head constable was now walking about in his jacket and stripes in the Queen's service instead of being hunted out of it as he would have been if he had been a Catholic?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid the hon. Member asked why these two clergymen had not been indicted for conspiracy with the head constable? The answer was simply because there was no evidence whatever against them. The head constable was guilty of an error of judgment, and so deserved
    1138
    the censure of the learned Judge. But there was not a particle of evidence to show that he entered into a conspiracy with the woman. On the contrary, there was not the smallest doubt that he himself was deceived. He was about to be punished, and when the hon. Member saw what his punishment was he would consider it adequate to the offence he really committed which was not that imputed to him. With regard to the case of Michael Hopkins, who was sentenced to 24 years' penal servitude, it did not come within his province to interfere with the remission of punishments. All he could say was that if there were any special circumstances in the case and a memorial was presented it would be carefully considered. As to the fishery case referred to by the hon. Member for East Mayo, if the hon. Gentleman had given him notice of his intention to call attention to it, he would have inquired into the circumstances. His recollection was that when these poachers were called upon to stand they refused, and endeavoured to beat the bailiff with their oars and that the latter fired his revolver in self defence. The Grand Jury threw out the bill against the bailiff, and returned a true bill against the other. If it was the case that the bailiff acted in self defence when attacked by several men, who attempted to beat him, the Grand Jury did not exceed their jurisdiction and authority in throwing out the Bill. But he would inquire into the matter to see if there was any miscarriage of justice such as the hon. Member suggested. In the case of the man who pleaded guilty to stealing two cows, there was not a single fact to establish the charge of corruption on the part of the prosecution and the Judge. The hon. Member said it was in accordance with the usual practice in Ireland with regard to emergency men and planters. He repudiated this. He did not believe any such practice prevailed. He had never known it. He should set his face against it, and he was sure every Judge on the

    1139
    Bench was incapable of resorting to it. But he would inquire in the matter, and he should be greatly surprised if he found anything to justify the accusation of the hon. Member.
    DR. TANNERsaid, the Government should put Canon Harley on his trial to see if the charge made against him was true. Still, he had known the Canon a good many years, and did not believe him guilty. When the First Lord of the Treasury was Chief Secretary he put Irish Members of Parliament promptly on trial, and let this Protestant clergyman and Canon of the so-called Church of Ireland be put on his trial too.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that the Government had no power to put upon his trial a man who had committed no criminal offence.
    Resolution agreed to.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
Clause 1,—

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  SHORT TITLE.
  This Act may be cited as the Housing of the Working Classes Act. 1890, Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1896.
  MR. J. CALDWELLsaid that the objection that he had to make to this clause was that it proposed to effect a very important change in a very well-understood principle of the land laws of Scotland. Under the existing principle, a man who purchased property must be upon the register before he acquired a full title to it. By the Bill, power would be given to the local authority to acquire the land which they might require for carrying the Act into operation without registering their title. They were entitled to ask the Lord Advocate why the Government were going to dispense with what was an essential requisite in every transaction in Scotland, that the title must be on the register.
  MR. ALEXANDER ASHERhoped the hon. Member for Mid Lanark would not insist upon this Amendment, which was based upon an entire misapprehension. The words in the clause were merely inserted for the purpose of giving local authorities power to purchase land for the purpose of the Act of 1893. The Amendment, if carried, instead of extending would limit the power of local authorities under the original Act of 1889. The clause did not in any way limit the powers of the local authorities as to the completion of title, and the hon. Member might rest content that local authorities, like every reasonable man, would take care to complete their title.
  Amendment negatived; clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 3,—

  DEFINING SECTION 96 (2) OF 53 & 54 VICT, c. 70.
  Section ninety-six, Sub-section two of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, shall he read and construed as if the words "and any Acts amending the same" had been inserted after "1871,"and as if the words" in the ease of a rural sanitary authority" had been inserted after the words "provided that" occurring in that sub-section.
  MR. CALDWELL MR. CALDWELL moved to add at the end of the clause—
  "Provided that any expenditure that any burgh within the meaning of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, may make under the provisions of this or of the recited Acts shall be defrayed out of a rate to be levied along with but as a separate rate from the general improvement rate leviable under said Burgh Police (Scotland) Act whore such general improvement rate is levied, but where such rate is not levied then by a rate to be imposed and levied in the same manner as if it were the general improvement rate, with all the powers of imposition, collection, and recovery applicable to that rate."
  The object of the clause was to remove a defect in the Housing of Working Classes Act which prevented burghs from borrowing money for the purposes of the Act. But it happened that the powers to which the section, if passed, would give vitality, imposed the rate in burghs solely on the occupiers, whereas in the counties under the same Act the rate was divided between the owner and occupier. What had been the effect of this legislation? Why, that with the one only

  1141
  exception of Peterhead, the burghs of Scotland had not taken advantage of the Ant, and the reason was, because the rates had been wholly and most unfairly imposed on the ratepayer. [Cries of "Divide!"] The burghs of Scotland maintained that there should be a fail-division of the rates between the occupier and owner; but whenever the question of rating had been raised in Parliament, the rates had been thrown wholly on the occupier. [Cries of "Divide!" and interruption.] He and others had made up their minds in future, whenever that was again sought to be done, to move Amendments, and take Divisions of the House against it. Sympathy and respect could only be expected for the law when it was based on equitable principles, and there could be no pretence to equity when the rates, which should in fairness be equally divided between the owner and occupier, were thrown on the tenants alone. He begged to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in his name.
  MR. ASHERsaid he should oppose the Amendment. The Bill had been introduced by the Government for the purpose of rectifying a mistake that occurred in the Act of 1892. By that mistake boroughs were excluded from the benefits of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890. ["Hear, hear!"] The Bill, as introduced, was strictly limited to the correction of that mistake. ["Hear, hear!"] The Amendment of his learned Friend introduced the highly contentious question of the incidence of rating. He did not oppose the Amendment on its merits or demerits, but on the ground that it was not germane to the Bill for the introduction of which he was much obliged to the Government.
  Amendment negatived.
  Bill reported.
  Motion moved, "That the Bill be put down for to-morrow."
  SIR C. DILKEasked what was meant by "to-morrow," Friday or Saturday? If Saturday, would the Leader of the House state what Business he intended to take on that day.
  THE FTRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that, as regarded Saturday's sitting, it was very important in the general interest of the House that they should get on. He was not desirous that there should be a long sitting; indeed, he hoped that the sitting would be a short and fruitful one.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Saturday.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  On the motion "That the Bill be now read a Second time,"
  SIR C. DILKEasked if there was any additional money given under this Bill?
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid his experience of these Bills was that they covered a job of some sort. He instanced the case of a railway in Ireland which had been "sold for a song," whereas if they; had known what was going on, a little syndicate could have been formed and the money of the taxpayers saved. They were unable to get information from the Board of Works, which operated behind. If he was inaccurate in his statement, why should they not be supplied with the papers and all the facts in connection with this transaction. The late Government had been utterly remiss in its eon-duct of this transaction. They had given away a most valuable railway to another railway company, and had thereby prevented public competition, and they had defrauded the unfortunate solicitor (who had since died) who had a lien for his charge of the amount that he was entitled to get for advancing money to the railway company out of his own pocket.
  MR. HANBURYsaid that without expressing any opinion upon the transaction

  1143
  himself, he thought that at any rate, in future, none of these sales should take place without public competition. Since he had been at the Treasury he had insisted very strictly on that condition, one or two cases having arisen. But they had to deal with facts as they were; it was utterly impossible for them to recover their loan, and this Bill simply accepted the facts and wiped off a loan which they could not recover. In the schedule of the Bill there were what appeared to be certain remissions, but they did not forfeit any right to recover the money. All that was done was to cease to treat the loans as assets of the Local Loans Fund. The general purport of the Bill was to enable the National Debt Commissioners to issue certain moneys to the Public Works Board in Ireland and the Public Works Loan Commissioners.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLasked whether the canals in Ireland would come under the operation of the Bill?
  MR. HANBURYsaid that under the Bill the Public Works and Loans Commissioners would have authority to loan money to canals in England, but in Ireland that power was vested in the Board of Works.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid something ought to be done with the Royal Canal in Ireland, which was in a shocking and dangerous condition for want of dredging.
  DR. TANNERasked why, if the rate of interest for loans was reduced in connection with the Scotch fisheries, the same advantage was not extended to Ireland?
  MR. HANBURYsaid that what the Bill really did was to put the Scotch Fishery Board in the position of a Harbour Board to which money could be loaned under the Harbours and Passing Tolls Act at 3¼ per cent. He did not think that was below the rate current in Ireland for loans under that Act.
  Bill read a Second time.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [19th May] on Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), further adjourned till Tomorrow.
  BISHOPRIC OF BRISTOL ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  AGRICULTURAL RATES, CONGESTED DISTRICTS AND BURGH LAND TAX RELIEF (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY GUARANTEE BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
STANNARIES BILL [H.L.]
Read a Second time, and committed for Monday next.
MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Second Heading [15th May] further adjourned till Tomorrow.
MILITARY WORKS (MONEY).
Order for Committee thereupon read, and discharged.

BURGLARY BILL [H.L.]
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 20th day of this instant July, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
House Adjourned at Ten minutes before Three o'clock.